April 2015 - National Right to Life

April 2015
Kansas Governor signs historic bill
banning Dismemberment Abortions
Kansas Gov. Brownback signs SB 95.
With the governor are (l-r) the Kansans for Life Legislative team: Jeanne Gawdun, Kathy Ostrowski, and
Jessica Basgall, J.D; and conferees Barbara Saldivar,State Director for Concerned Women for America, and
Michael Schuttloffel, Executive Director, Kansas Catholic Conference.
Kansas Governor Brownback signs historic ban on
Dismemberment Abortion
By Kathy Ostrowski, Legislative Director, Kansans for Life
Earlier today, Kansas prolife Gov. Sam Brownback
signed into law the historic
“Unborn Child Protection from
Dismemberment
Abortion
Act.” Model language for SB
95 was provided by the National
Right to Life Committee, which
made this bill its top state
legislative priority. Passage
was the number one priority for
Kansans for Life this session.
SB 95 bans a particularly
gruesome abortion method
in which a living unborn
Kansans for Life senior lobbyist Jeanne Gawdun (left) congratulates
Reps. Steve Brunk (R-Wichita), Becky Hutchins (R-Holton), and John
Rubin(R-Shawnee) after passage of SB 95
child in her mother’s womb
is ripped apart into pieces by
an abortionist using sharp
metal tools. In the words of
U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Anthony
Kennedy,
the
unborn child, “dies just as a
human adult or child would:
It bleedsto death as it is torn
limb fromlimb.”[Stenberg v.
Carhart, 530U.S. 914, 958-959]
Records from the Kansas
Health & Environment Dept.
See “Brownback,” page 38
Bi-Partisan WV Majority Overrides
Gov's Veto of Pain-Capable Bill
By Karen Cross, National Right to Life Political Director
What an honor and a privilege
it was when my bosses at
National Right to Life allowed
me to travel to the state capitol
in Charleston, West Virginia, Protection Act.
to work with West Virginians
That glorious triumph took
for Life (WVFL) to pass a place March 6. I would like to
Pain-Capable Unborn Child talk about how this override
These women are some of the WV Delegates who voted in favor of
WV's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
of the governor’s veto came to
pass--and what it signifies.
First and foremost is what The
West Virginia Pain-Capable
Unborn Child Protection Act
will do. It will protect unborn
children from 20 weeks fetal
age, based on legislative
findings that there is compelling
evidence that an unborn child
by that point (if not earlier)
is capable of experiencing
excruciating pain during the
process of dismemberment or
other abortion procedures.
See “Bi-Partisan,” page 21
Editorials
Dismemberment abortions and the shock of
recognition
Each state legislative session is different for obvious
reasons--turnover, whether an election year or not, how much
was accomplished previously--and not so obvious reasons. But
for Kansans, and by extension, the entire Movement, the current
session will forever be etched in their minds. It was (in that ofttimes overused but in this instance justified word) “historic.”
Tuesday morning pro-life Gov. Sam Brownback happily fulfilled
a promise. He signed into law SB95, the Unborn Child Protection
from Dismemberment Abortion Act.
Brownback said, “This is a horrific procedure and we are pleased
to ban it in Kansas and we hope it will be banned nationally.”
According to Kansans for Life, to commemorate this groundbreaking and first-in-the-nation measure, Gov. Brownback will
travel across Kansas for ceremonial signings of the bill on April 28.
Let’s put SB95 in context.
There are many ways to open the public’s eye, which, when
you come down to it, is a precursor to opening their hearts. With
ultrasounds, for example, it’s as if the curtain shielding the littlest
Americans from our sight has been lifted. Our fellow human beings
were there all the time. We just hadn’t “seen” them.
Nonetheless, we are wise if we remember that George Orwell’s
insight still applies:”To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a
constant struggle.”
With first partial-birth abortion and now Dismemberment
abortions, it is a very different shock of recognition. It’s one thing to
be blind to the unborn child’s presence and then have the veil lifted.
It is quite another to learn that we kill vulnerable unborn babies with
“techniques” that border on the psychotic.
Consider the now banned partial-birth abortion technique. Could
anyone outside the precincts of the abortion industry even imagine
delivering a live unborn child feet-first except for the head and then
holding the baby in that position while the abortionist punctured her
skull — killing the child — and then suctioning out her brains?
No wonder pro-abortion legislators in Kansas and Oklahoma,
including even some who regularly parrot the abortion lobby’s
propaganda, chose not to participate in the debate over
Dismemberment abortions. Those that did (surprise, surprise) talked
about everything under the sun except what happens and to whom.
And who can blame them? Except for the genuine sickies in the
abortion trade, who would be comfortable talking about ripping tiny
legs off of little torsos? Who wouldn’t dread highlighting that the
baby’s head is crushed in a Dismemberment abortion? Who would
want to be the Paul Revere of death who alerts the world that these
helpless babies bleed to death?
So when you read their gibberish, their misinformation and
disinformation, you can’t help but be reminded of a second quote
from Orwell, among his most famous and most important: “The
great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap
between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were
instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish
spurting out ink.”
Or, we could add, pretend ignorance
Let’s talk about just a couple of examples.
“We’ve never seen this language before,” Elizabeth Nash, senior
state issues associate for the Guttmacher Institute, told the AP’s
Brad Cooper. “It’s not medical language, so it’s a little bit difficult to
figure out what the language would do.”
Actually it’s not all at difficult to figure out what abortionists
cannot do. Under the bill, abortions are banned that “dismember”
a living unborn child…one piece at a time…through the use of
clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments.
What else? The standard pro-abortion pot-calling-the-kettle-black
nonsense.
Take, for instance, Caitlin Borgmann, former state strategies
coordinator for the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, who
told Cooper, “It’s meant to try to create an inflammatory description
that people are going to read and then support the bill because their
instinct is that this sounds terrible.”
Others of her ilk, such as Laura McQuade, the president of Planned
Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, like “sensational” and
“graphic,” as if somehow that discredits what supporters of the ban
are saying, as if pro-abortionists never use “sensational” language in
slurring pro-lifers and impugning our motives at every turn.
But back to the point: which characterization--pro-lifers’ or prochoicers’-- corresponds more closely to reality? Which is buried in
obscurities and which is simply telling the unvarnished truth?
See “Dismemberment,” page 9
From the President
Carol Tobias
Abortion is Not “Good”….Ever!
For years, abortion advocates
acknowledged
that
the
American public did not like
abortion and did not consider
abortion to be a positive aspect
of modern culture. Abortion
advocates tried to make us
believe that abortion was a
“necessary” evil.
Bill Clinton ran for president
on a pro-abortion platform
saying that abortion should be
“safe, legal, and rare.” Twenty
years after Roe v. Wade, then
NARAL Pro-Choice America
president Kate Michelman said,
in a rare moment of candor, “We
think abortion is a bad thing.”
(When called on it by her proabortion allies, Michelman
insisted she was misquoted.
Alas, for her, the reporter had
taped the conversation.)
These abortion leaders knew
Americans did not like abortion
being practiced as just another
method of birth control.
Today, a new mode of
thinking is being pushed by the
abortion industry. Women want
abortion. Women like abortion.
Abortion is a good thing. Or so
they try to tell us.
In an article titled “Abortion
Rights are at a Crossroads,”
authors David Gunn, Jr. and
Sunsara Taylor write, “If we
want to turn the tide, we have to
tell the truth: there is absolutely
nothing wrong with abortion.
Fetuses are NOT babies.
Abortion is NOT murder.
Women are NOT incubators.”
They continue, “We stand
at a crossroads. For the future
of women everywhere, let
us refuse the worn pathways
that have allowed us to lose
so much ground.” Evidently
one of those “worn pathways”
is “apologizing” for abortion.
Now abortion should be
celebrated, even “normalized.”
A new crop of abortion
advocates tell women to be
proud of their abortions. The
women can enter contests to
publicly tell their abortion
story, hoping to encourage other
women to follow suit and end
the lives of their children. One
had her 15 minutes of twisted
fame when she uploaded a
video of her abortion onto
YouTube.
To see how far abortion
advocates have moved from
“safe, legal, and rare,” consider
a new type of abortion facility
opening up to provide for a
“spa-like” abortion experience
in a Maryland suburb outside
of Washington, DC. We’re
told that “staff members plan
to greet clients with warm teas,
comfortable robes and a matterof-fact attitude.”
When I heard about this new
venture, I thought of tonsils. I
still have mine but, when I was
younger, I thought it would
be fun to have them removed
because I had heard I would be
able to eat all the ice cream I
wanted as I healed. That made
the likely pain seem almost
worthwhile.
Having your tonsils removed?
Eat ice cream. Having that new
little life inside you removed?
Get a massage. In this new
place, you won’t get a massage
(yet), just a comfy robe and a
cup of tea, but that’s the image
they’re pushing.
However, women know that
taking the life of their unborn
child is much more serious than
having tonsils removed. Nor
does the American public look
at the two as equal. There is an
inherent dignity in, and respect
for, human life in America.
Even after 42 years, Americans
still know and believe that
abortion is wrong. Some of
them may think that abortion
is sometimes “necessary”,
but they consider it to be a
necessary “evil”.
The words of Mother Teresa
ring true to all of us, “If we
accept that a mother can kill
even her own child, how can
we tell other people to not kill
each other? Any country that
accepts abortion is not teaching
its people to love, but to use
any violence to get what they
want.”
As the number of aborted
women coming forward to say
they feel remorse grows, there
is no huge groundswell of
women coming forward to talk
about how it was no big deal to
kill their children.
For years, I had wondered
why, if abortion is so important
and pro-lifers are so “cruel”
as to prevent the use of tax
dollars to pay for abortion,
those in the abortion industry
don’t provide free abortions.
After all, pregnancy resource
centers provide free help to any
pregnant woman who contacts
them.
Abortion
advocates
are
becoming
more
visible
in their efforts to raise
money for abortions. In an
interesting recent face-off,
CNN commentator Sally Kohn
tweeted that she was giving
money to a cause that would
help pay for abortions for
women who can’t come up
with the money. Radio and TV
host Dana Loesch challenged
her followers to respond by
giving to pro-life causes and
announced that she had given
$100 to NRLC.
People all over this great land
will give selflessly and even
sacrificially to help save babies’
lives. It’s much harder to
convince people to give money
so an unborn child will die.
An interesting side note—
there is a group raising funds
to pay for abortions, but can
you guess their top priority?
To overturn the federal Hyde
amendment and state laws
against tax funding of abortion.
Their efforts to pay for abortion
are led by a desire to make you
and me pay for them.
After one of my speaking
engagements, a woman came
up to me with a big smile
on her face and introduced
me to her son, a high school
senior heading into the Navy.
When she was pregnant, she
was slated for an abortion but
circumstances intervened to
prevent that from happening.
I wish every woman
considering an abortion could
see the pride and love in that
mother’s eyes as she looked at
the young man he had become.
Difficult, or maybe even
terrifying,
circumstances
now won’t seem so scary or
insurmountable in later years.
I plead with any woman
considering abortion—don’t
do it!
Don’t listen to the gibberish of
the “be proud of your abortion”
crowd. Don’t buy into their
latest publicity stunt to make
you think you’re doing nothing
more than removing tonsils.
There is a movement of love
waiting with big hearts and
open arms. Abortion never
has been, and never will be,
anything good. Choose life for
your baby. Please.
4
April 2015
National Right to Life News
www.NRLC.org
Upon closer inspection, survey of Millennials
show pro-life attitudes
By Dave Andrusko
A fresh study of millennials
by the Public Religion Research
Institute (PRRI) offers such
interesting food for thought,
even if it takes some extra time
to digest. Because the study of
2,314 young people between
the ages of 18 and 35 does not
break down broad generalized
inquires about abortion, not
only are there some misleading
impressions left, there are also
drastic limits to what you can
conclude. And there is much
other work that better shows
how pro-life young people are.
Nonetheless….
First, PRRI (which no one
who reads its work would ever
think harbors sympathy for the
right to life movement) starts
off by saying “Millennial
attitudes about the legality
of abortion generally mirror
the attitudes of the general
public.” At one level, that
would be positive, since we are
forever being told that younger
people are more “liberal” on
social issues. But it is even
more encouraging because
most polls underestimate how
pro-life the overall public
actually is.
Let’s see what the PRRI
results are:
22% say abortion
should be “legal in
all cases” and 33% in
“most cases.”
27% say abortion
should be “illegal in
most cases”; 15% say
illegal in “most cases.”
But, unlike what Gallup has
done for a number of years,
there was no follow up question
to determine what those who
said abortion should be legal in
“most cases” meant?
Gallup now asks people
who say abortion should be
legal “only under certain
side, at least six in
ten black Protestant
(61%)
and
white
mainline
Protestant
millennials (63%) say
abortion should be
legal in all or most
cases, as do 79% of
religiously unaffiliated
millennials.
White
Catholic millennials
are
evenly
split
between those who
say abortion should
circumstances”
whether
they mean “legal under most
circumstances” or “legal only
in a few circumstances.”
This parsing out of what
people are saying explains why
we can say—with complete
accuracy—that
we
know
that a total of 58% of the
American public believes that
abortion should be illegal in all
circumstances (20%) or legal
in only a few circumstances
(38%).
What else can we learn from
the Millennial survey?
Millennials are divided
by religion on the issue
of abortion. On one
be legal in all or most
cases (51%) and those
who say it should be
illegal in all or most
cases (49%).
On the opposing
side, majorities of
Hispanic
Catholic
(55%) and Hispanic
Protestant millennials
(61%) think abortion
should be illegal in all
or most cases. White
evangelical Protestant
millennials stand out
as the group most
opposed, with eight
in ten (80%) saying
abortion should be
To be clear, Gallup’s wording
is slightly different. Gallup
offers these options:
Abortion
should
be legal “under all
circumstances”;
“only under certain
circumstances”;
and “illegal in all
circumstances.”
illegal in all or most
cases.
A growing demographic is
solidly pro-life. Good, good
news.
Another
surprise?
(Not
actually but…) A majority of
Millennials
oppose a policy that
makes
abortion
legally available to
young
people
age
16 or older without
parental
approval.
Nearly six in ten (59%)
millennials
oppose
making
abortion
services available to
young women age 16 or
older without parental
consent, while 37%
support this policy.
You can read the full
report—“How
Race
and
Religion Shape Millennial
Attitudes on Sexuality and
Reproductive Health”— at
http://publicreligion.org/site/
wp-content/uploads/2015/03/
P R R I - M i l l e n n i a l s - We b FINAL.pdf
www.NRLC.org
National Right to Life News
national RIGHT TO LIFE
CONVENTION
April 2015
2015
New Orleans July 9, 10, & 11
WE ARE A
VOICE
for the
voiceless
Dr. George Delgado
Abortion Pill Reversal
Carol Tobias
NRLC President
Bobby Jindal
Rachel Campos Duffy
Governor of Louisiana Author & TV Personality
John McCormack
The Weekly Standard
Alan & Lisa Robertson with Miss Kay
from A&E series Duck Dynasty
Join us for the annual meeting
of America’s pro-life family!
HOTEL
The Marriott Hotel New Orleans
555 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA
For Reservations: 1-888-364-1200
« 3 Full Days
« More Than 100
Pro-Life Speakers
« More than 70 Session
« Teen Convention
« Childcare Available
Special Convention Rate
$129 per Night Flat Rate
Up To 4 To A Room
Mark your calendars
now and join us for this
phenomenal event where
you will be inspired,
educated and empowered to
be a voice for the voiceless!
Register today at NRLConvention.com
5
6
April 2015
National Right to Life News
www.NRLC.org
Dynel Lane will not be charged with murder in
attack on pregnant woman whose baby died
By Dave Andrusko
Murder charges will not be
filed against Dynel Lane, accused
of stabbing Michelle Wilkins
and cutting out her 7-month-old
unborn child, according to the
Denver Post. However Lane
was charged with eight felony
counts in the attack, including
first-degree unlawful termination
of pregnancy.
Tragically, the child, who
was to be named Aurora, died.
Ms. Wilkins, 26, miraculously
survived the March 18
attack. She left the hospital in
Longmont, Colorado and is at
home, according to her family.
“I understand that many
people in the community, and
heaven knows I’ve heard from
a lot of them, would like me to
have filed homicide charges,”
Garnett said at a March 28
news conference. “However,
that is not possible under
Colorado law without proof of
a live birth.”
According to Garnett, the
Boulder County coroner’s
office did not find signs
Michelle Wilkins’ baby ever
lived outside of the womb.
Colorado
criminal
law
“defines homicide as the killing
of a person by another,” Garnett
said, according to the Post. “It
defines a person, when referring
to the victim of a homicide, as
a human being who had been
born and was alive at the time
of the homicidal act.”
Lane, 34, is also charged
with first-degree attempted
murder, two counts of firstdegree assault and two counts
of
second-degree
assault.
“Prosecutors also filed two
counts of a crime of violence
against Lane, which are
sentence enhancers,” the Post’s
Jesse Paul reported.
Garnett said the counts filed
are ones they believe they can
prove “beyond a reasonable
doubt.”
“She could get a very long
sentence and very well die in
prison,” Garnett said of Lane
Lane, the mother of two, is
being held on $2 million bond.
The unsuspecting Wilkins
when Ridley came home and
saw her drenched in blood,
Lane told her husband she had
miscarried.
Ridley went upstairs and
found the baby in the bathtub.
He told police the baby was
alive.
“He rubbed the baby slightly,
then rolled it over to hear and
to place a 911 call. Longmont
Police Cmdr. Jeff Satur “said
officers arrived on the scene
and could hear a woman calling
for help inside the home,” the
Post reported. “They entered
and found the victim, who had
been beaten and stabbed in the
stomach with a knife.”
“She was barely conscious.
was seven months pregnant
when she answered a Craigslist
ad for baby clothes. At some
point after Wilkins arrived,Lane
stabbed her several times in
the stomach with a knife and
a piece of broken glass, police
said. Lane then cut Aurora out
of Ms. Wilkins’ body.
According to the criminal
complaint, Lane’s husband,
David Ridley, was unaware of
what his wife had done when
he came home. (There is no
indication from authorities that
he will be charged.) She had
told him she was pregnant and
see it take a gasping breath,”
according to the complaint.
The arrest report states that
Ridley rushed the baby and
his wife to Longmont United
Hospital where Lane was taken
to the emergency room with the
baby in her arms.
The arrest report states that
Lane refused to let the hospital
staff examine her. “The report
states that she then ‘admitted’
to a police officer ‘that she cut
[the victim’s] abdomen open
to remove,’” according to the
Post.
Meanwhile, Wilkins managed
It was very hard to keep her
attention at the moment,”
officer Billy Sawyer told CNN’s
Erin Burnett. ”And she was
covered in blood. It was one of
the most horrific crime scenes I
have seen.”
Nonetheless Wilkins was
able to tell Sawyer what had
happened to her. At that point,
she did not know that she had
lost her baby.
Another bizarre detail has
emerged. Lane was registered
with the state as having an
expired nurses’ aide license.
www.NRLC.org
National Right to Life News
April 2015
7
Terminally ill Lauren Hill appears on “The View,” also
gives remarkable interview to local television station
By Dave Andrusko
Cincinnati television station
WCPO 9 has done some terrific
reporting on a hero of mine: Lauren Hill. It was from the affiliate
that I learned that Lauren, suffering from terminal brain cancer,
taped an interview with The View
that aired March 20. Lauren and
her mother, Lisa Hill, appeared
Pontine Glioma (DIPG), and was
not expected to live much, if all,
past Christmas. We’ve reported
on Lauren, a counterpart to fatalism and despair, a number of
times.
From The View appearance,
we learn several things. Lauren
is not (comparatively speaking)
still has her eye on the prize:
Lauren tells The View
hosts that she is hoping
to turn the nearly $1.5
million she has already
raised for research to
fight pediatric cancer
into $2.2 million – symbolic of the No. 22 she
Lauren Hill and her mother, Lisa Hill, appear on "The View" by satellite feed with co-hosts
Whoopi Goldberg and Rosie Perez and Brooke Desserich of The Cure Starts Now.
by satellite feed with co-hosts
Whoopi Goldberg and Rosie Perez and Brooke Desserich of The
Cure Starts Now.
Lauren has helped raise over
$1.5 million for The Cure Starts
Now. Her indomitable spirit and
formidable determination went
national when she fulfilled a
dream by playing basketball for
Mount St. Joseph University.
Lauren has Diffuse Intrinsic
the picture of health she was last
fall when she played briefly for
her team. The disease is taking its
toll—but she is as brave as ever
even if she cries on her mother’s
shoulder after the filming was
over. And as she speaks out on
behalf of kids with cancer, her
goal of finding a cure is undiminished
According to WCPO’s Greg
Noble, the 19-year-old Lauren
wore for Mount St. Joseph University.
The View hosts announce a special donation to the Lauren
Hill Tribute Fund, and
Lauren asks the hosts to
challenge their audience
and friends to give $22
in her name.
“It’s taken me months
to raise $1 million.
And right now we’re
at $1,500,000. And I
challenge you to challenge your viewers and
friends to donate even
more than that – like
if everybody donates
$22… And help these
kids and help these families because they need
it,” Lauren says.
In her interview with Tanya
O’Rourke of “9 On Your Side,”
Lauren says she doesn’t want
“to be considered a quitter” after
she’s gone. Lauren is the furthest
thing from a quitter.
O’Rourke originally decided
not to go through with the interview when she saw Lauren break
down following the taping. But
Lauren insisted they go on.
I didn’t know that Lauren is
now living at Children’s Hospital and that she gets around in a
wheelchair. But despite everything, “Nevertheless, Lauren
managed the same, bright smile
for the camera that we are used to
seeing,” Noble reported.
O’Rourke was obviously deeply moved by the interview and
gently moves Lauren forward as
she is tiring. Noble includes this
telling exchange:
O’Rourke: “You can lose a battle [against DIPG ] but win the
war. Even if you lose the battle,
you helped win the war.”
Lisa Hill “You’re the general.”
Lauren, who joked several
times during the interview, then
showed her sense of humor is
intact.
“General,” she said, “is
he the highest rank?”
In my book, Lauren is a FourStar General.
8
April 2015
National Right to Life News
www.NRLC.org
Courts examine ObamaCare’s controversial IPAB,
potential dangerous healthcare rationing yet to come
By Jennifer Popik, JD, Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics
In a recent poll coinciding
with the fifth anniversary of
the Obama health care law,
Rasmussen reports, “Five years
after its passage by Congress,
attitudes about the national
health care law remain largely
unchanged: Voters expect it to
increase health care costs and
hurt the quality of care.”
On the heels of this sobering
anniversary, the Supreme
Court has put the brakes on the
most recent in a series of legal
designed to limit spending
growth in Medicare, but the
challengers say that it will
result in limiting care for
seniors. ... The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit
said the case was not ripe for
review because the panel has
not yet made any decisions.
The refusal of the High Court
to hear a case is not uncommon
in cases like this. The Supreme
Court is reluctant when only
one lower court has ruled. This
While the public focus has
been on the IPAB’s authority
to cut Medicare with very
limited Congressional authority
to override or alter those cuts,
National Right to Life has
been emphasizing a still graver
concern – one at the core of
rationing in the Obama health
care law. (See www.nrlc.org/
uploads/communications/
healthcarereport2014.pdf)
Integral to the Obama
Administration’s stated mission
challenges – one regarding
the controversial Independent
Payment Advisory Board or
IPAB.
According
to
Jennifer
Haberkorn of Politico in
her March 30, 2015 article,
“Supreme Court won’t hear
case on Obamacare Medicare
board”
The Supreme Court on
Monday declined to take
up the latest lawsuit against
Obamacare, this time a
challenge to a board that
critics label a “death panel.”
The case, Coons v. Lew,
contested the constitutionality
of the Independent Payment
Advisory Board, among
other complaints against
Obamacare. The IPAB is
is true especially when the
ruling was not on the merits of
the case, but based on the fact
that the IPAB has yet to start
limiting health care. The court
may very well revisit this issue
once the cuts start.
Haberkorn writes
The challengers say
that the unique nature
of the ...IPAB gives it
unprecedented
legal
power. Its decisions
cannot be overridden
by Congress without
a super-majority and
cannot be challenged in
court. The challengers
— an Arizona patient
and doctor — say that
centralized
power
makes the IPAB illegal.
to drive down what Americans
choose to spend for life-saving
and health-preserving health
care, the IPAB is charged
with a key role in suppressing
health care spending for all
Americans, not just seniors,
by limiting what treatment
doctors are allowed to give
their patients.
The
health
care
law
instructs the IPAB to make
recommendations to limit
what all Americans are legally
allowed to spend for their
health care to hold it below the
rate of medical inflation. The
health care law then empowers
the federal Department of
Health and Human Services
(HHS) to implement these
recommendations by imposing
so-called
“quality”
and
“efficiency”
measures
on
health care providers. (The
documentation can be found
in the endnotes at (www.nrlc.
org/uploads/communications/
healthcarereport2014.pdf.)
In the event the IPAB fails
to recommend these cuts (if,
for example, members are not
seated, or Congress somehow
defunds the board), HHS will
simply absorb the role.
What happens to doctors
who violate a “quality”
standard by prescribing more
lifesaving medical treatment
than it permits? They will be
disqualified from contracting
with any of the health insurance
plans that individual Americans,
under the Obama Health Care
Law, will be mandated to
purchase. Few doctors would
be able to remain in practice if
subjected to that penalty.
This means that a treatment
a doctor and patient deem
advisable to save that patient’s
life or preserve or improve
the patient’s health–but which
exceeds the standard imposed by
the government–will be denied
even if the patient is willing
and able to pay for it. Repeal
of IPAB is critically important
to prevent this rationing of lifesaving medical treatment.
While the Supreme Court
did not take up the IPAB
case, it will issue a highly
anticipated decision in another
Obamacare case before June.
King v. Burwell addressed the
health care law’s exchange
tax subsidies – another key
feature of the law that can also
be read about at www.nrlc.
org/uploads/communications/
healthcarereport2014.pdf.
www.NRLC.org
National Right to Life News
April 2015
Oklahoma Senate Committee passes Unborn Child
Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act
9
By Dave Andrusko
Any day now the Oklahoma
Senate could be voting on the
model Unborn Child Protection
from Dismemberment Abortion
Act, which was provided by
National Right to Life and is
one of its highest legislative
priorities.
Oklahoma State Senator Josh Brecheen
On March 23 the Senate Health
and Human Committee passed
the measure overwhelmingly
by a vote of 7-1 and sent it to
the Senate floor.
All of the committee
Republicans voted for the bill;
one Democrat opposed the bill,
while another Democrat was
absent.
The lone Nay vote came from
a female attorney, who asked
the bill’s author (sponsor),
Senator Josh Brecheen, a series
of questions about the bill’s
constitutionality.
“Senator Brecheen did a
masterful job responding to the
Democrat attorney’s hostile
questions,” Oklahomans For
Life State Chairman Tony
Lauinger told NRL News
Today. “He quoted both proabortion and pro-life justices
of the United States Supreme
Court to very convincingly
make the case that we fully
expect the bill to be upheld as
constitutional.”
In February the House
version, HB 1721, passed 842. As NRL News Today wrote
at the time, several House
members who commonly vote
against pro-life bills abstained
rather than publicly oppose the
bill prohibiting such a grisly,
barbaric method of killing a
child in the womb.
In Kansas a similar bill is on
the brink of becoming law. SB95
has passed both houses and prolife Gov. Sam Brownback has
promised to sign it into law.
As was the case in Oklahoma,
pro-abortion senators refused
to discuss the particulars of the
abortion method which kills a
baby by tearing her apart, limb
from limb.
Dismemberment abortions and the shock of recognition
From page 2
In a dismemberment abortion,
the body of the current resident
of the womb is literally (not
figuratively)
dismembered,
limb-by-limb.
Don’t want to take my word
for it? Here’s Supreme Court
Justice Antony
Kennedy,
quoting from the testimony of
abortionist LeRoy Carhart:
“As described by Dr.
Carhart, the D&E
procedure
requires
the abortionist to use
instruments to grasp
a portion (such as
a foot or hand) of a
developed and living
fetus and drag the
grasped portion out
of the uterus into the
vagina. Dr. Carhart
uses
the
traction
created by the opening
between the uterus and
vagina to dismember
the fetus, tearing the
grasped portion away
from the remainder of
the body…. [until the
unborn baby] bleeds to
death as it is torn limb
from limb… In Dr.
Carhart’s words, the
abortionist is left with
‘a tray full of pieces.’”
We call that “brutal.”
How do pro-abortionists
describe what takes place?
To Tara Culp-Ressler, a
dismemberment
abortion
“involves dilating the cervix
and using surgical instruments
to remove the fetal and
placental tissue.”
That’s right, “fetal and
placental tissue.”
To return to Borgmann’s
lament, “It’s meant to try
to create an inflammatory
description
that
people
are going to read and then
support the bill because their
instinct is that this sounds
terrible.”
No, it isn’t. The language of
the Unborn Child Protection
from Dismemberment Abortion
Act simply tells it like it is—in
all its surrealistic brutality–not
the way pro-abortionists would
like it disguised.
Final thought. Like the
proverbial blind squirrel who
finds a nut, McQuade did
stumble across a truth. “It’s
not just a legal campaign, it’s a
campaign in the court of public
opinion.” It is indeed. And we are
winning!
10
April 2015
National Right to Life News
www.NRLC.org
Post-Abortive, Former Abortion Clinic Worker
Speaks Out for Life
By Andrew Bair
Jewels Green is a post-abortive mother of three who
worked in an abortion clinic
before becoming pro-life. She
will share her powerful story this year
at the 2015 National
Right to Life Convention to be held July
9-11th in New Orleans,
Louisiana. www.nrlconvention.com
Green discusses her
journey and the message she would share
with others who have
experienced the pain
of abortion and with
those still working in
the abortion industry.
Growing up, did you hold any
firm views on the abortion issue?
I was raised in a pro-choice
household, so from when I
was old enough to understand
the word “abortion” I was prochoice by default.
In an interview with Live
Action News, you described
yourself at the time you became pregnant as a “17-yearold drug-using high school
drop-out.”
This is true.
Could you describe the factors that came into play that
led you to the abortion center?
Well, as soon as I found out
I was pregnant I stopped using
drugs, started reading about
pregnancy, and had intended to
have the baby. I’d even scheduled a pre-natal appointment.
Intense pressure from others
led me to allow myself to be
talked into going to the abortion center. My first appointment I couldn’t go through it.
I ran out before it was time to
Post-It note and wish her luck.
The same holds for parenting options (single or married
parenting, medical assistance,
disrobe. My resolve crumbled,
and I returned to the center two
days later and had an abortion.
WIC). I would hand her a
phone number and send her on
her way.
Did you feel that you were
fully informed by abortion
clinic staff about the options
available to you and the abortion procedure itself?
I have no recollection of any
other options being discussed,
but I do remember the abortion procedure being described.
Later, when I worked in an
abortion facility and counseled
women before their abortions,
alternatives to abortion were
never discussed. Only when a
woman called and scheduled a
separate appointment specifically for “options counseling”
would parenting and adoption be discussed. Even then,
counselors were not trained in
describing different types of
adoption (closed, open--with
different options of levels of
contact, kinship care, etc.) The
best I could do at the time was
scribble a phone number on a
You’ve also stated, “Everyone
wanted me to get an abortion… except me.” What,
if anything, could a pro-life
person have done in that situation to help you? How can
the pro-life movement more
effectively reach out to pregnant women facing difficult
circumstances?
I didn’t know anyone who
was pro-life at the time. Or,
maybe I did but didn’t know
it. I think that we can be more
effective if we are pro-life with
everyone--not just in a debate
or when trying to reach out to
vulnerable mothers--but be vocally pro-life in all aspects of
our lives. Our family, friends,
co-workers, and classmates
should all know that we are prolife on abortion. Wear a pro-life
t-shirt, slap a pro-life bumper
sticker on your car, strike up
a conversation with someone
who might not already know
your stance. My theory is that if
we are open with our beliefs to
the point of actually advertising
them, then someone
facing a problem pregnancy in the future
knows who she can
turn to for support.
What happened after
the abortion?
I immediately regretted it. After all, I’d
planned on keeping
my baby and only after prolonged intense
pressure did I succumb
to the plan others dictated for me. I slid
into a clinical depression, an
emotional black hole of regret,
remorse, grief, and guilt. A few
weeks after my abortion I attempted suicide.
Later, you became a pretty
ardent pro-choice activist.
You’ve described taking part
in pro-choice marches, lobbying Congress and then ultimately working in an abortion facility. What was the
driving motivation behind
your activism?
In hindsight, I think I was
trying to justify and rationalize
my role in my own abortion. I
surrounded myself with people
who thought abortion was a legitimate (even laudable) decision in the hopes that someday
I might believe that, too. Deep
down, I never really did.
See “Clinic Worker,” page 24
www.NRLC.org
National Right to Life News
April 2015
11
Kansas Becomes the First State to Enact
Groundbreaking Dismemberment Abortion Ban
WA S H I N G T O N – T h i s
morning,
pro-life
Kansas
Governor Sam Brownback
(R) signed into law the
groundbreaking
Unborn
Child
Protection
from
Dismemberment Abortion Act.
The bill received overwhelming
support in the state legislature
earlier this year. In signing
the bill, Governor Brownback
makes Kansas the first state in
the nation to enact the National
Right to Life model legislation
that will prohibit the use of
dismemberment abortions. The
law will go into effect on July
1.
“The Unborn Child Protection
from Dismemberment Abortion
Act is the first of what we hope
will be many state laws banning
dismemberment
abortions,”
said Carol Tobias, president of
National Right to Life. “This
law has the power to transform
the landscape of abortion policy
in the United States.”
Dismemberment abortions
are as brutal as the partial-birth
abortion method, which is now
illegal in the United States.
In his dissent to the U.S.
Supreme Court’s 2000 Stenberg
v. Carhart decision, Justice
Anthony Kennedy observed that
in dismemberment abortions,
“The fetus, in many cases, dies
just as a human adult or child
would: It bleeds to death as it is
torn limb from limb. The fetus
can be alive at the beginning
of the dismemberment process
and can survive for a time while
its limbs are being torn off.”
Justice Kennedy added in the
Court’s 2007 opinion, Gonzales
v. Carhart, which upheld the
ban on partial-birth abortion,
heart, brain waves, and
every organ system in place.
Dismemberment
abortions
occur after the baby has
reached these milestones.”
“We applaud our affiliate,
Kansans
for
Life,
for
A medical illustration of
a
D&E
dismemberment
abortion is available here:
www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/
deabortiongraphic.
Background materials on
the bill are available on the
that D&E abortions are “laden
with the power to devalue
human life…”
“Dismemberment abortion
kills a baby by tearing her
apart limb from limb,” said
Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D.,
National Right to Life director
of state legislation. “Before
the first trimester ends, the
unborn child has a beating
shepherding this bill through
the legislature,” added Tobias.
“We applaud the legislators
who stood up for unborn
children by supporting the
Unborn Child Protection from
Dismemberment
Abortion
Act, and we thank Governor
Brownback for his outstanding
pro-life leadership in signing it
into law.”
National Right to Life website.
Included in the background
materials is the testimony
of Anthony Levatino, M.D.,
before the U.S. House Judiciary
Committee
Subcommittee
on the Constitution and Civil
Justice in May 2013, in which
he described in great detail
the D&E dismemberment
abortions he once performed.
12
April 2015
National Right to Life News
www.NRLC.org
Spa-like abortion clinic spawns pro-abortion defenders
By Dave Andrusko
When I first wrote about
Carafem–the
goofy
proabortion attempt to transform
a trip to the abortion clinic into
the equivalent of a relaxing trip
to the spa–I knew that at the
same time I was ridiculing the
project, pro-abortion apologists
would be citing Carafem as
the next great leap forward for
womankind.
In case you missed it,
Christopher Purdy, President
and CEO, bragged to the
Washington Post’s Sandhya
Somashekhar that Carafem is
“fresh, it’s modern, it’s clean,
it’s caring.” Melissa S. Grant,
vice president of health services
for Carafem, chimed in, “It
was important for us to try to
present an upgraded, almost
spa-like feel.”
Indeed,
reading
about
Carafem it does sound
like something out of the
abortion industry’s version of
Architectural Digest.
“The clinic will have
wood floors and a
natural wood tone
on the walls that
recalls
high-end
salons such as Aveda,”
wrote
Somashekhar
(the Post’s “social
change
reporter”).
“Appointments,
offered evenings and
weekends,
can
be
booked online or via a
24-hour hotline.”
What a deal. Right after she
books her quick chemical
abortion
(Carafem
only
performs chemical abortions),
a woman could book a pizza
online to be picked up at the
closest pizza joint. (Maybe
Carafem will offer a discount
coupon.) Whether a quickie
termination or a rush food
order, nothing like speedy
service and convenience.
Now even the professional
abortion apologist knows
that critics–including NRLC
President Carol Tobias (who
spoke to Somashekhar) –“want
to tap into that unease”–a
reference to the “roughly half”
of Americans who “think
abortion is morally wrong.” In
the Post story
Tobias
said
she
thinks people will
be “disgusted” by
Getting
medical
treatments in general
is unpleasant. That’s
exactly why health care
providers should try
to smooth the edges as
much as possible with
creature
comforts.
The same should go
for abortion, a really
common
procedure
that a woman runs
a 1-in-3 chance of
needing at some point
in her life. Abortion
is legal. If you want
a little more misery
and shame with your
abortion experience,
feel free to impose that
on yourself, but for
those who disagree,
pass the fluffy robes
and the herbal teas.
this preposterous enterprise
borders on self-parody–that
the abortion industry reveals
itself to be every bit as cavalier,
morally unserious, and casual
about offing unborn children as
pro-lifers accuse them of being.
But, not to worry. There’s
always (and I do mean always)
Amanda Marcotte.
Her particular gift, so to
speak, is to strike back in direct
proportion to the zaniness of the
latest pro-abortion idiocy. The
more foolish, the more selfcondemnatory the proposal,
the harder she attacks critics.
Or should I say, the more
illogically.
So, in this instance, Marcotte
tells her readers at Slate.com
Carafem, the spa-like
abortion clinic.
“Abortion is not
pleasant,” she said,
“and trying to put
pretty
wrappings
around the procedure
isn’t going to make any
difference.”
Never mind the sophomoric
cancer
and
abortion
equivalency. Never mind that
the “edges” smoothed off in a
typical abortion are the arms
and legs of a tiny human being.
That’s the quality of thinking
you expect from abortion
apologists.
But “Pass the fluffy robes and
the herbal teas.” If I wrote that
sentence, I would doubtlessly
be accused of making it up–of
taking a cheap shot–because no
abortion rights advocate would
treat abortion that unseriously,
that flippantly, that repugnantly.
Ah, yes she would. And
proudly so.
Okay, we can expect a grown
up answer from Marcotte to a
grown up sentiment that you
don’t have to be a pro-lifer to
hold, right?
”Well, cancer isn’t pleasant,
either,” Marcotte responds,
but that’s not a
reason to deny cancer
patients fluffy robes
and soothing music.
www.NRLC.org
National Right to Life News
April 2015
13
6 people whose lives are changing the abortion debate
By Kristi Burton Brown
1) 12-week-old Noah
Noah died during a miscarriage at 12 weeks and 5 days.
His mother willingly shared an
amazing photo of his tiny human body so that others could
see the humanity of the preborn
child with their own eyes.
“If [Noah] could help show
one mother considering abortion the beauty of her child,”
Noah’s mother said. “Then our
loss would be worth it.”
to of their baby girl in a bid to
reopen the debate on the legal
limit for abortion, saying what
Adelaide Caines
Born just after the first trimester, this tiny baby was unquestionably human. His mother said:
“My heart is heavy.
He was so perfectly
formed. No one can
deny [that] 13-weekand-4-day-old
baby
wasn’t a baby. He is
delicately put together.
You can see every detail. I know God will
use him to bring glory
to His kingdom, and
for that, I am thankful.”
they witnessed in their daughter’s short life “makes a mockery out of the 24 week legal
limit.”
Baby Noah
This article describes what
happens to babies who are
aborted at Noah’s age and
younger.
2) Adelaide Caines
Born at 24 weeks, Adelaide
died before her birth day was
over. But her parents were compelled to let the world see their
beautiful daughter and the reality of who abortion kills:
“Our picture shows Adelaide
was not a feotus; she was a fully formed human being, and
to think that a baby like her
could be legally terminated on
grounds of a lifestyle choice is
to me is horrifying,” Caines explained.
Adelaide’s parents have chosen to publicly release the pho-
3) Walter Joshua Fretz
When baby Walter was miscarried at 19 weeks, his parents
decided to celebrate him and
capture a few brief moments
of his precious life. His photos
went viral, and countless people
throughout the world have seen
that babies inside the womb –
who are so often aborted – are
undeniably human beings.
4) Nathan Isaiah
Nathan Isaiah
cult circumstance they or their
parents may face. Christian has
showed the world that every
child deserves a chance to live.
Under her video, Lacey
writes:
“This is my plea to
anyone
considering
abortion. Rethink your
decision, no matter the
circumstances. I am so
glad I chose life!”
6) David Raphael
David is the youngest of the
babies in this list, and yet he
equally proves the humanity
of every preborn child. His humanity challenges assumptions
that are commonly made about
abortion.
David was only seven weeks
old – an age when many abortions occur in the U.S. Babies
5) Christian Buchanan
Christian’s mother, Lacey,
made this YouTube video telling their story. People told her
to abort, or wondered why she
David Raphael
Lacey and Christian Buchanan
Baby Walter cuddled up
to his mom.
didn’t when they saw Christian’s disability. But Lacey had
always been convinced that
Christian – and all other children – are valuable, despite any
condition, disability, or diffi-
like David are suctioned apart
and ripped from their mothers’
wombs on a daily basis.
The scientific organization,
The Endowment for Human
Development, explains what
babies at David’s age can do:
From seven to seven-and-ahalf weeks, tendons attach leg
muscles to bones, and knee
joints appear. Also by sevenand-a-half weeks, the hands
See “6 People,” page 32
14
April 2015
National Right to Life News
www.NRLC.org
“Miracle” Baby defies doctors predictions,
celebrates first birthday
By Dave Andrusko
I have been the beneficiary
of great doctoring and have
relatives in medicine so I often
give physicians the benefit of
the doubt (at least as to their
motives) when they make
questionable judgments. That
doesn’t mean you accept their
counsel, of course.
And, fortunately, for a lot of
unborn babies, their mothers
have turned down gloomy
forecasts and refused to accept
conclusions by doctors that
their babies were inevitably
going to die.
Enter Michelle Moloney,
profiled by Andy Dolan for
the Daily Mail. In mid-March
her son, Michael, celebrated
his first birthday, the picture of
health, along with his parents
and sister Lilly and brother
Patrick.
But it could easily have
turned out otherwise.
At eighteen weeks “I felt my
baby kick in the early hours,”
Mrs. Moloney told Dolan.
“It was such a definite kick
– the reassurance that every
expectant mum longs for.” The
first kick.
But just a few hours later
when her water broke, “I felt
terrified.”
Doctors told Moloney and
her husband Patrick that she
had too little amniotic fluid and
they were losing their child. “It
was absolutely devastating,”
Mrs. Moloney told Dolan.
Doctor at University Hospital
Coventry said they “could
either induce labour or let
nature take its course in up to
ten days,” Dolan explained.
But there was no decision
for Moloney to make. “I could
feel my baby move,” she said.
“’There was no way I could go
through with an induction.’
She went home, fully
expecting that she might lose
her baby. But Michael made it
one week after another until at
24 weeks she was admitted to
the hospital.
When she delivered at 26
weeks, not only was Michael in
a breech position he weighted
just 1lb, 12oz. Doctors
struggled—successfully—for
20 minutes to revive him.
Now Michael is one year old.
“He’s a miracle,” Mrs. Moloney
said, adding, “I’m so thankful
we have our little boy.”
Michelle Moloney and her husband Scott with
Lily, 4, Patrick, 2, and baby Michael
www.NRLC.org
National Right to Life News
April 2015
Idaho Gov. signs bill to curb web-cam abortions
15
By Dave Andrusko
As of Monday morning, there
are now 19 states that require
abortionists to perform inperson exams when they use
chemical abortifacients.
Idaho Governor
C.L. “Butch” Otter
Idaho Gov. C. L. “Butch”
Otter signed the bill into law
after it passed both houses of the
legislature by overwhelming
margins.
The bill had passed the Idaho
House (55-17) and the Senate
(27-7). All seven “nay” votes
today were cast by Democrats.
But because the Senate made
a slight change in the House
version, the bill had to go back
to the House where it was
quickly approved.
The requirement protects
women’s health and is a direct
challenge to webcam abortions
(or, as proponents prefer to call
them, telemed abortions).
In webcam abortions an
abortionist located at a hub
clinic teleconferences with a
woman at one of the smaller
satellite offices, reviews her
case, and asks a couple of
perfunctory questions. He
then clicks a mouse, remotely
unlocking a drawer at her
location.
In that drawer are the
abortion pills which make
up the two-drug abortion
technique (RU-486 and a
prostaglandin). She takes
the RU-486 there and takes
the rest of the pills home to
administer to herself later.
“These web-cam abortions
are specifically targeted at
women in very rural parts of
our state. How will they get
to a physician … in case of
an incomplete abortion?” said
Sen. Mary Souza. “Those are
life-threatening situations. So
I think it would behoove us to
pass this bill, because it is a
matter of women’s health, and
I think in Idaho we have the
common sense to see that this
is an important procedure for
us to protect women and to not
go down this path in our health
care delivery system”
On February 23, Dr. Randall
K. O’Bannon, NRLC’s director
of Education, testified before
the Idaho House State Affairs
Committee.
Dr. O’Bannon read from the
tally from a postmarketing
summary on mifepristone
published by the FDA on April
30, 2011.
* more than 2,200 reports
of “adverse events” or
complications (2,207)
* more than 600 women
(612) hospitalized
* more than 300 (339)
requiring transfusions
* 256 women reported
infections, with 48
of them classified as
severe
* 58 cases of ectopic
pregnancies, which the
pills do not treat
Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D.
Dr. O’Bannon summarized
how webcam abortions work
and the much-underreported
dangers of chemical abortions.
Sometimes
these
complications prove deadly.
The FDA knew of at least
14 deaths associated with
use of these drugs in the U.S.
and at least five more in other
countries. And that was nearly
four years ago!
The Idaho bill also requires
that abortionists make “all
reasonable efforts” to ensure
that women return between 12
and 18 days after their abortions
for follow-up examinations.
16
April 2015
National Right to Life News
www.NRLC.org
North Carolina asks Supreme Court to hear
abortion ultrasound case
By Dave Andrusko
On March 23 North Carolina
Attorney General Roy Cooper
and Solicitor General, John F.
Maddrey asked the Supreme
Court to take up the decision
of a three-judge panel of the
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of
Appeals striking down The
“Right to View” provision
of North Carolina’s 2011
“Woman’s Right to Know”
law.
Cooper, a likely Democratic
candidate for governor in 2016,
said at the time of the appeals
court decision that he opposed
the provision but had a duty to
defend it in court.
The provision requires that an
ultrasound image of the unborn
child be displayed at least four
hours prior to an abortion so
that the mother might view
it and that she be given the
opportunity to hear the unborn
child’s heartbeat.
Writing for the panel in
December 2014, Judge J.
Harvey Wilkinson argued that
this amounted to “compelled
speech, even though it is a
regulation of the medical
profession,” and “is ideological
in intent and in kind.”
Judge Wilkinson added,
“Abortion may well be a special
case because of the undeniable
gravity of all that is involved,
but it cannot be so special a
case that all other professional
considering that a human life
hangs in the balance.”
The law, passed with bipartisan support, was enacted in
July 2011 over then-Governor
Beverly Perdue’s veto. The
rights and medical norms go
out the window.”
At the time of Judge
Wilkinson’s 37-page decision,
Barbara
Holt,
executive
director of North Carolina
Right to Life, told NRL News
Today, “We are disappointed
by the decision of the Court
striking down North Carolina’s
Ultrasound law.” Holt added,
“Turning the screen at an angle
where the mother may view it if
she wishes is very little to ask,
“Right to View” provision was
preliminarily enjoined by U.S.
District Judge Catherine Eagles
in October of 2011. On January
17, 2014, Judge Eagles, an
Obama appointee, issued a
permanent injunction which the
state appealed a month later.
When the two sides squared
off in front of the appeals court
in October 2014, the coalition of
opponents argued that the right
to view provision amounted
to “compelled speech” which
“hijacks a provider’s [the
abortionist’s] voice,” according
to Julie Rikelman from the
Center for Reproductive Rights.
Not so, said Maddrey. The
provision
adds
“relevant,
truthful, real-time information”
to North Carolina’s informed
consent law,” he said, according
to the Associated Press. He
added, according to reporter
Larry O’Dell, that the state has
a legitimate interest in ensuring
that a woman’s decision “is
mature and informed.”
Maddrey went on to add that
“The possibility that sharing
physical characteristics of a
fetus might make a woman
reconsider does not make
it unconstitutional,” Franco
Ordoñez
of
McClatchy
Newspapers reported.
Maddrey “cited earlier U.S.
Supreme
Court
decisions
that found that the state has a
legitimate interest to protect not
only the health of a pregnant
woman but also the life of
the embryo or fetus she is
carrying.”
Maddrey said, “There is
an additional state interest at
play,” the unborn child
www.NRLC.org
National Right to Life News
April 2015
Government Report Shows Hundreds of Millions in
Tax Dollars Going to Planned Parenthood,
Other Abortion Advocates
17
By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., NRL Director of Education & Research
In a $3.8 trillion federal
budget, it isn’t always easy
to keep track of where all the
money goes. But one thing a
recent report from the U.S.
Government
Accountability
Office (GAO) makes clear is
that groups such as abortion
giant Planned Parenthood
and the chemical abortion
promoter Population Council
continue to find ways to tap
into government programs to
the tune of hundreds of millions
of dollars a year to keep
themselves afloat and active.
The tally for 2010-2012?
More than $1.5 billion to
Planned
Parenthood
and
more than $120 million to
the Population Council. It is
government largesse like this
that helps explain how you end
up with U.S. taxpayers covering
41% of Planned Parenthood’s
annual budget.
Prepared at the request
of 62 pro-life senators and
representatives, the March
20, 2015, report from the
GAO looked at federal
government funding going
to the Planned Parenthood
Federation
of
American
(PPFA) and its affiliates,
the Population Council, as
well as four other abortion
promoting
or
performing
organizations: Advocates for
Youth, Guttmacher Institute,
International
Planned
Parenthood Federation, and
the Sexuality Information
and Education Council of the
United States (SIECUS).
Most of the money going
to these groups came from
two government sources, the
Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) and the
U.S. Agency for International
Development
(USAID).
These
agencies
handle
from 2010 -2012 and being
reimbursed for services by
Medicaid (a joint federalstate program) to the tune of
the government’s “family
planning,” teen pregnancy
prevention,
HIV/AIDS
education and treatment, public
health, and maternal and child
health programs. HHS largely
focuses on domestic programs,
USAID on foreign aid. Smaller
amounts uncovered by the GAO
came from the Departments of
Agriculture, Defense, Housing
and Urban Development, and
Justice.
Precisely
matching
up
amounts allocated and spent
is somewhat difficult, given
gaps between disbursement
and provision of services,
differences in fiscal years, and
the confluence of federal and
state sources. But the GAO
shows Planned Parenthood
reporting $344.52 million in
expenditures of federal funds
$1,184.44 million (or about
$1.2 billion) during the same
period of time.
All told, this means Planned
Parenthood, the nation’s largest
abortion chain, received more
than $1.5 billion in public
funds over a three year period,
or at least half a billion dollars
a year.
Federal law prohibits the
use of federal Medicaid funds
to pay for abortion (except to
save the life of the mother, or in
cases of rape or incest). Federal
law also prohibits funding of
abortion under another major
federal “family planning”
program, Title X.
Still, it sure makes it a lot
easier to build and expand your
abortion empire when you’re
getting 41% of your annual
budget from the pockets of
taxpayers. It is worth noting
that in a 25-year period where
abortions have dropped by more
than 34%, abortions at Planned
Parenthood have increased by
more than 250%.
And even though several old
Planned Parenthood clinics
have shut their doors over the
past few years, many PPFA
affiliates across the country
have found the funds to open
giant shiny new high-volume
mega-clinics, raising their
profile, and increasing their
capacity to perform abortions.
Though Planned Parenthood
and its affiliates are, by far,
the
biggest
beneficiaries
of
domestic
government
spending,
the
Population
Council,
an
international
nonprofit
dedicated
to
“reproductive health,” was
the biggest recipient of funds
from USAID, the nation’s
foreign aid program. The
Population Council received
disbursements totaling more
than $110 million between
2010 and 2012. One should
also remember that it was the
Population Council which was
responsible for bringing RU486—“the abortion pill”–to the
United States.
The next largest recipient
of USAID funds among
the six tracked groups was
the
International
Planned
Parenthood Federation, with
which USAID contracted for
nearly $23 million in services
during the same time period.
See “Tax Dollars,” page 33
18
April 2015
National Right to Life News
www.NRLC.org
Abortion Lobby plans to add non-physicians to
ranks of abortionists nationwide
By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., NRL Director of Education & Research
When California passed a law
in 2013 authorizing physician’s
assistants, nurse practitioners,
and nurse midwives to perform
aspiration (vacuum curettage)
abortions, a lot of people hoped
it was just an isolated case,
one state going rogue. But a
new report from the Center
for American Progress (CAP)
shows it was merely the first
step of a nationwide campaign
by the abortion industry to
replenish the diminishing ranks
of abortionists.
The
report,
“Improving
Abortion Access by Expanding
Those Who Provide Care,” is
by Donna Barry and Julia Rugg
of the Center for American
Progress,
a
“progressive”
Washington, D.C. think tank that
promotes “access to abortion” as
part of its efforts for “women’s
rights.” Before coming to CAP,
Barry worked for, among others,
the Planned Parenthood League
of Massachusetts. Rugg is a
CAP intern.
The “issue brief” explicitly
seeks to “provide background
on the need for additional
states to pass legislation and
implement policies allowing
APCs to provide abortion care;
an overview of the new policy;
and an analysis of states where
such legislation should be
introduced.” “APC” is a term the industry
has coined for what it calls
“advance-practice clinicians”
such as nurse practitioners
(NPs), certified nurse-midwives
(CNMs),
and
physician’s
assistants (Pas).
APCs to Bolster Diminished
Ranks of Abortionists
The “need” Barry and Rugg
talk about comes from the large
number of abortionists retiring
or simply getting out of the
abortion business. According
to figures from the Guttmacher
Institute, the number of California, Oregon, Montana,
“abortion providers” peaked Vermont, and New Hampshire. in 1982, when it reached a
There are a handful of states
high of 2,918. The latest figure where non-physicians can
(for 2011) has the number of perform chemical but not
abortionists at 1,720, a drop of surgical abortions: Alaska,
41%. Drops in the number of
abortions soon followed--34%
from 1990 to 2011, from a
peak of more than 1.6 million
abortions to just over a million
(1,058,490).
Abortionists
may
quit
performing abortions for many
reasons – because they feel
ostracized by other members
of their profession, because
the killing wears on their
conscience, because demand
has fallen and business is bad.
But Barry and Rugg attribute
the dearth to “new restrictions” Hawaii, Washington, New
pro-lifers have gotten passed in Mexico, Illinois, New York,
many states.
Massachusetts,
Connecticut,
The thrust of Barry and Rugg’s New Jersey, Maryland, and
strategy is to use legislation and Rhode Island.
lobbying to have states and state
While sympathetic courts,
licensing boards expand APCs’ state attorneys, and licensing
“scope of practice.” The “scope boards have helped expand
of practice” defines what sort the pool of abortionists in
of care a medical professional some states, Barry and Rugg
of a certain level of education believe legislation, like that
or training – in this case, a passed in California, will best
nurse practitioner, a certified provide APCs with the “long
nurse-midwife, or a physician’s lasting legal protection and a
assistant – may legally render. secure environment in which
National associations set some to enter the aspiration abortion
standards, but state licensing workforce.”
boards often set state specific
scopes of practice through From California to the Rest of
rulemaking or rulings by state the Nation
courts or attorneys general. Though
this
campaign
Barry and Rugg note that this seemed, for many, to have
has been an effective way of appeared out of nowhere, Barry
getting states to allow APCs to and Rugg point out that the
perform chemical abortions.
effort to expand APC’s scope
According to the University of practice to include aspiration
of California, San Francisco’s abortion actually began more
ANSIRH (UCSF’s Advancing than ten years earlier, when “a
New Standards in Reproductive committed group of academics,
Health) research group, non- policy
professionals,
and
physicians are currently allowed advocates began an effort to
to perform both chemical and expand abortion access for
“aspiration” (suction abortions) women in California.”
abortions in five states:
Researchers from UCSF set
up a study in which APCs who
already had experience with
chemical abortions were trained
by
physician/abortionists
to
perform
aspiration
abortions. Researchers claimed
that the study showed similar
complication rates for both
APCs and physicians.
NRLC’s own analysis of the
data
(http://nrlc.cc/1FlBflT)
found things going considerably
worse
for
the
APCs.
Nevertheless the UCSF study
was used to gain allies in various
health, professional, and legal
organizations to push legislation
in California, which passed
in 2013, and then to support
expansion in other states.
Barry and Rugg specifically
identify as their next legislative
targets those states mentioned
above where some APCs are
allowed to perform chemical
but not surgical abortions, as
well as Pennsylvania. They
say that these states, given
their legislatures, governors,
and “regulatory environment”
regarding chemical abortions,
“could
potentially
pass
legislation expanding scopes of
practice” and thus allow APC’s
to perform aspiration abortions
in the first trimester.
Barry
and
Rugg
also
identify eight states where
See “Abortionists,” page 19
www.NRLC.org
National Right to Life News
Abortion Lobby plans to add non-physicians to
ranks of abortionists nationwide From page 18
nurse practitioners have “full
practice authority” but are
kept from performing surgical
or chemical abortions by
laws limiting abortions to
physicians. (Ironically, Barry
and Rugg point out that many
of these laws were passed in
the immediate aftermath of
Roe v. Wade to protect women
from being preyed upon by
“unlicensed
providers.”)
Legislation or administrative
rulings in Nevada, Idaho,
Wyoming,
North
Dakota,
Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa,
and Maine “could increase the
number of abortion providers”
in those states.
More than 14 million women
of reproductive age live in that
first set of states which are
“amenable” to policy changes
allowing APCs to have expanded
“abortion care privileges,” say
Barry and Rugg, and another
3.3 million such women in those
other states where APCs have
full practice authority but face a
legal obstacle. More to their point, however,
there are nearly 50,000 nurse
practitioners and certified nurse
midwives licensed to practice in
those first 12 states and another
8,000 NPs and CNMs in those
other eight states. They are
under no illusion that every APC
will sign up to receive abortion
training, but the potential to
expand the pool of abortionists
is dramatic.
It is not just the supply of
abortionists that Barry and Rugg
and the Center for American
Progress wish to pump up. Speaking of the legislation in
California they want to make
a model for the rest of the
U.S., Barry and Rugg say that
“In addition to increasing the
number of clinicians providing
aspiration
abortions,
this
legislation paves the way for
abortion to be reintegrated
into primary care clinics and
community health centers in
California, therefore increasing
the number of locations where
women can access abortion
care.”
Mainstreaming Abortion
In a backhand way, Barry
and Rugg acknowledge that the
declining number of abortions
is not simply a matter of an
abortionist shortage. There
are fewer abortionists, and
an increase in the pool may
have the effect of pushing
the numbers back up, but one
reason abortions have dropped
and there are fewer abortionists
is just that there is reduced
demand--that is, fewer pregnant
women are seeking abortions in
the first place.
Barry and Rugg, predictably,
try to make the decline an issue
of “stigma.” They say that “One
way to combat limited access
and reduce stigma is expanding
access to abortion care by
allowing more clinicians to
provide this procedure.” They
also claim that the California
legislation
helped
reduce
stigma for women by enabling
clinics to offer abortion on
more days a week, making it
difficult for sidewalk counselors
to congregate on the day the
abortionist was scheduled to be
there. One of the footnotes to the
brief mentions something called
the “APC Toolkit,” a 2009
document published by UCSF’s
ANSIRH research group, an
abortion training promoting
group called the Abortion
Access Project (now called
“Provide”), and the National
Abortion Federation. The 94
page document is basically a
guide taking nurse-midwives,
nurse-practitioners,
and
physician assistants through all
the medical, professional, and
legal steps needed to become
abortionists in their home states.
That document is relevant
in making clear that this latest
report from the Center for
American Progress, though less
than a month old, represents
neither a new nor an isolated
campaign. Abortion advocates
are not happy to see abortion
becoming more “rare,” and
this national campaign to
co-opt some of nation’s
health workforce of nursemidwives, nurse-practitioners,
and physician assistants is a
significant part of the effort to
retake the ground they’ve lost to
the pro-life side over the past 25
years.
A Less Expensive, Less
Trained Labor Force
Barry and Rugg hint at one
of the other reasons behind the
push. “Expanding APCs’ scope
of practice,” they say, “could
potentially reduce the cost of
primary care as their billing
rates for visits and medical
procedures are usually lower
than the rates of physicians.” Put
another way, because they lack
the training and qualifications
of physicians, these nursemidwives, nurse-practitioners,
and physician assistants can
work cheap, keeping clinic
costs lower, and helping to keep
abortions cheaper.
Whether physicians will
push back is unknown. The
California Medical Association
backed the bill there. If there
is no reason for all their years
of special training, no special
skill that comes with a medical
degree, it becomes hard to
explain why doctors must spend
all that money on medical
education, why they should
hold a unique public trust or
more practically, and why they
should be allowed to charge
more for their services. [1]
In truth, despite the spin of
the UCSF study, the results did
not show the skills of APCs
as commensurate to those of
physicians (APCs had nearly
twice as many complications).
And if there is a problem,
patients still need the special
skills of a doctor with surgical
April 2015
19
training. Though abortion
is clearly a violation of a
physician’s medical oath, there
is still a reason for that expensive
medical education.
In the end, despite their talk
about updating “scopes of
practice” and claims of APC
“competency” in performing
what used to be commonly
recognized
as
surgical
procedures requiring special
training, the efforts of the
Center for American Progress
and abortion advocates who
are pushing for this dangerous
medical revolution can be
summed up this way:
Unsuccessful in their efforts to
recruit enough abortionists from
the ranks of America’s medical
doctors, abortion advocates
are now turning to lower level
clinicians in an effort to bolster
their ranks, hoping to co-opt and
corrupt yet another wing of what
is supposed to be the healing
profession. And your state could be next.
[1] Part of the reason abortion
advocates try to avoid using
the “surgical” label for firsttrimester aspiration abortions
is to deny that they require
any special surgical expertise. They claim that this process is
not invasive, does not involve
cutting, and thus is not strictly
speaking, surgery. Even putting
aside the fact that abortionists
introduce a sharp curette deep
into the uterus to scrape and then
to determine “completeness”
of the abortion, and all the
risk involved there, the claim
that there is “no cutting” at a
minimum involves a contention
that the baby, who is definitely
cut, is not a part of the woman’s
body. But if the child is not
part of her body, then the old
slogan of “my body, my choice”
is based on a false premise and
the fundamental rationale of
the pro-choice movement is
exposed as fraudulent.
20
April 2015
National Right to Life News
www.NRLC.org
Woman who aborted her 25-30 week old baby and
tossed him in a dumpster sentenced to 20 years
By Dave Andrusko
On March 30 St. Joseph
Superior
Court
Judge
Elizabeth Hurley sentenced
Purvi Patel to 20 years in
prison for throwing her
newborn son into a dumpster
following
a
chemicallyinduced abortion.
In February, following a trial
that took place over six days
and which 20 witnesses offered
testimony, Patel was convicted
of feticide and child neglect.
Prosecutors said she took drugs
the neglect conviction, with
20 to be served in prison and
10 suspended. On the feticide
count, Hurley handed down a
six-year prison sentence that
will overlap with the 20-year
term.”
Jeff Sanford, Patel’s lawyer
“asked for the entire sentence
to be suspended and served
outside of prison, saying
prosecutors never proved she
illegally took drugs from China
to terminate her pregnancy.”
Purvi Patel
(Robert Franklin, South Bend Tribune)
to induce an abortion and failed
to get medical help for the baby
when he was born alive.
“You,
Ms.
Patel,
are
an educated woman of
considerable means. If you
wished to terminate your
pregnancy safely and legally,
you could have done so,” said
Judge Elizabeth Hurley said.
“You planned a course of action
and took matters into your own
hands.”
According to the South Bend
Tribune, “Hurley sentenced
Patel to a 30-year sentence for
St. Joseph County Chief
Deputy Prosecutor Mark Roule
said Patel could have sought
help for her baby, “but instead
betrayed a victim who was
wholly dependent on her,”
according to the Tribune’s
Christian Sheckler.
“His only chance at survival
was his mother,” Roule said.
“In this case, the mother did
nothing, left him on the floor to
die and threw him in the trash.”
Judge Hurley said she looked
favorably at the remorse Patel
showed in a letter to the court
and Patel’s lack of criminal
history.
But Hurley said she was
troubled by Patel’s failure to
get help, and that she treated
the baby “literally as a piece of
trash.”
The
prosecution
said
Patel, 33, took abortifacients
purchased online from overseas
in July 2013 and then deposited
the body of her 25-30 week-old
baby into a dumpster in back
of Moe’s Southwest Grill, the
family restaurant.
The defense argued, contrary
to testimony from prosecution
witnesses, that Patel’s baby
boy was not viable and was
already dead when born;
that there was no physical
evidence she’d actually taken
the abortifacients; and that
Patel tried to revive the baby,
attributing her failure to call
911 to shock.
But in summarizing and
quoting from the prosecution’s
closing argument. WSBT’s Kelli
Stopczynski wrote
The state told jurors
Patel’s intent was to
give herself an illegal
abortion, and that’s
what prosecutors say
she did.
“This
whole
production is about
a little boy…” said
Deputy
Prosecutor
Mark Roule. “He
wasn’t expected, he
wasn’t wanted. He
lived a brief and
horrible life. What
happened to him was
very, very wrong.”
Roule
reminded
jurors about details
they’ve already heard
— that the baby was
born on the bathroom
floor at Patel’s home.
She wrapped him in
plastic bags and put him
in a dumpster behind
Moe’s Southwest Grill
in Mishawaka – a
restaurant her family
owns.
Then, when her pain
and bleeding wouldn’t
stop, Patel went to the
emergency room.
“She continued to lie
to doctors and nurses…
she tried to keep secret
the fact that she’d been
responsible for another
life and done nothing,”
Roule said.
Then, six months of
text messages between
Purvi Patel and her
best friend about her
irregular period, a
positive
pregnancy
test in June and the
abortion
pills
she
ordered online and
took, according to
those texts.
According to WNDU
Patel’s attitude was
perhaps captured in
a text to a friend that
read, “Just lost the
baby. I’m going to
clean up my bathroom
floor and then go to
Moe’s.”
www.NRLC.org
National Right to Life News
April 2015
21
Bi-Partisan WV Majority Overrides
Gov's Veto of Pain-Capable Bill From page 1
As the former executive
director for West Virginians
for Life, I am very familiar
with West Virginia’s legislative
process.
However,
after
working at National Right
to Life in D.C. for ten years
I knew I needed to spend
time getting to know the new
legislators. This year, there
were an incredible number of
freshmen coming in as well,
Unborn
Child
Protection
Act, HB 2568, sponsored by
Republican and Democrat
delegates: Sobonya, Arvon,
Kessinger, Rowan, Summers,
Border,
Blair,
Espinosa,
Waxman, Moye and Eldridge,
was introduced on February
3. It was double-referenced
to Health, then Judiciary
Committees.
Guiding legislators through
John Carey, WVFL legislative coordinator; Del. Michael Moffatt; Wanda
Franz, WVFL president; Dr. Mike Rollins, OB-Gyn; Del. Brian Kurcaba;
Jennifer Popik, NRL legal counsel; Del. Kelli Sobonya, lead sponsor;
and Karen Cross, NRL political director, following a public hearing in
the House Health Committee.
so they need special attention
to understand the legislative
process as it pertains to prolife legislation, which is often
treated differently by hostile
pro-abortion colleagues and by
a biased media.
Before the start of West
Virginia’s 82nd Legislative
Session, John Carey, WVFL’s
legislative
coordinator;
Dr. Wanda Franz, WVFL’s
president; and I met with a team
of leaders from both Houses
to discuss the Pain-Capable
Unborn Child Protection Act.
Leadership in both houses
are truly pro-life, and were
anxious to pass this lifesaving
legislation.
The legislation is based on a
National Right to Life model
bill that has passed in ten
other states and currently is in
effect in eight states across the
country: Alabama, Arkansas,
Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, and
Texas.
West Virginia’s Pain-Capable
the committee process is
challenging, and yet rewarding
as relationships are nurtured
and trust is built. Surviving
the committee meetings and
hearings which, when pro-life
legislation is on the agenda,
can be grueling and last four or
five hours, often leads to more
camaraderie – as if we’ve been
in battle together, and it is great
“practice” preparing legislators
for the floor votes.
In the Health Committee
hearing, and later in the
session for the Senate Judiciary
Committee,
Doctor
Mike
Rollins,
an
obstetriciangynecologist, and Jennifer
Popik, J.D., legal counsel for
National Right to Life’s Robert
Powell Center for Medical
Ethics, testified in favor of the
legislation.
Popik explained, “Medical
science provides substantial
compelling
evidence
that
unborn children experience
pain as early as 20 weeks, if
not earlier. They even require
anesthesia for fetal surgery.”
Regarding constitutionality
of the legislation, Popik
added, “The Pain-Capable
laws are considered a case of
first impression in the courts,
which means this issue has
never been presented to the
court before. The question of
whether the state has an interest
in protecting the lives of paincapable unborn children is
one that we would welcome
however it has not yet reached
the U.S. Supreme Court where
we believe we would be
victorious.”
Following the hearing, prolife delegates rejected a number
of hostile amendments to HB
2568 in both committees, and
voted overwhelmingly to send
it to the floor for a vote for
passage.
By February 11, 2015, the
day hundreds of pro-life West
Virginians were at the Capitol
for West Virginians for Life’s
Pro-Life Rally and Day at the
Legislature, the Pain-Capable
Unborn Child Protection Act
was through the committee
process. It had been read a
first and second time on the
floor where pro-life legislators
had held off three hostile
amendments that would have
rendered the bill meaningless.
to the state Senate, where the
process was started all over
again. Passing legislation,
especially pro-life legislation,
is a very tedious process and
requires patience, perseverance
and lots of prayer.
On February 12, the Senate
received HB 2568. It was taken
up in the Senate Judiciary
Committee on February 20,
where
pro-life
legislators
rejected unfriendly amendments
and sent the bill to the floor
with a recommendation that it
“do pass.”
On February 25, after
weakening amendments were
rejected on the floor, HB 2568
passed the state Senate, 29-5,
with a minor change, which
meant the House had to vote to
concur with the Senate change.
Finally, on March 2, the
Pain-Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act was sent to
Governor Earl Ray Tomblin
for his consideration. Many
legislators
believed
the
Governor would not veto the
legislation a second year in a
row, especially after it passed
with such bi-partisan majorities
in both Houses.
Despite the fact that more than
two-thirds of the Democrats
voted for passage, Governor
Tomblin vetoed the bill, which
Jennifer Popik, National Right to Life legal counsel, testifying before the
Senate Judiciary Committee.
It was time for passage
in the state House. An
overwhelmingly
bi-partisan
majority passed the legislation
87-12, with one not voting.
Pro-life Delegate Ron Walters
registered his “yes” vote the
next day, making final passage
in the House 88-12.
Now the bill had to be sent
meant that both Houses had to
override his veto.
Following the veto, West
Virginia Attorney General
Patrick Morrisey said, “I
am disappointed with the
Governor’s decision to veto the
See “Bi-Partisan,” page 22
22
April 2015
National Right to Life News
Bi-Partisan WV Majority Overrides
Gov's Veto of Pain-Capable Bill
pain-capable legislation for the
second year in a row and urge
the Legislature to override it.
It is long-past time that limits
are placed on abortions in
West Virginia. Currently West
Virginia law does not limit
how late an abortion can occur.
While no one can predict with
certainty how a court will rule,
I believe that there are strong,
good-faith arguments that this
legislation is constitutional and
should be upheld by the courts.
If the Legislature overrides this
veto and the law is challenged,
I will defend it in court.”
On March 4, the House voted
to override his veto, 77 to 16,
with 7 not voting. On March 6,
the Senate voted to override,
27 to 5, with 2 not voting. The
overwhelming override of the
governor’s veto, which was
the first veto override in nearly
three decades, reflects the will
of pro-life West Virginians
who worked so hard to elect
legislators who will stand for
life.
Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D.,
director of state legislation
for the National Right to
Life Committee and author
of the model legislation,
worked closely with us as
we maneuvered through the
legislative process.
Following final passage,
Balch said, “States have
a compelling interest in
protecting the lives of unborn
children who are capable of
feeling pain from abortion.
www.NRLC.org
From page 21
West Virginia becomes the
eleventh state to recognize
this obligation by enacting the
Pain-Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act.”
“We commend the members
of the legislature who supported
this bill for their courage and
compassion by adding their
voices in favor of protecting
pain-capable unborn children
who are unable to speak for
themselves,” added Balch. “We
condemn Governor Tomblin for
his cowardice and indifference
toward the innocent, unborn
child who is capable of great
suffering from the violence of
abortion.”
As I hope this article conveys,
I find the legislative process
fascinating, and especially love
to work directly with legislators:
educating and communicating
the pro-life message to them, so
that they can pass strong prolife protective laws for unborn
children and their mamas.
Thanks to the many pro-life
West Virginians who worked
for this law, when HB 2568
goes into effect (90 days from
passage), West Virginia will be
a safer place for pain-capable
unborn children and a better
place for all those who value
human life.”
Look
for
updates
in
future National Right to Life
News and National Right to
Life News Today.
www.NRLC.org
National Right to Life News
Concern expressed about the effect of
smoking on pre-born babies
April 2015
23
By Mike Schouten
In another case of cognitive
dissonance
regarding
the
rights of pre-born children
Cosmopolitan
has
posted
an article with disturbing
ultrasound images showing
how pre-born babies react when
their mothers smoke. In a study
from Durham and Lancaster
universities researchers looked
at the effect of smoking on
children in the womb.
The Cosmopolitan article
states:
Over the course of the
study, the researchers
took 80 ultrasounds of
20 babies between the
24th and 36th weeks
of pregnancy. Of the
20 cases, 16 babies had
non-smoking mothers
and four had smoking
mothers. The mothers
who smoked has an
average of 14 cigarettes
each day.
The results (above) show the
babies whose moms inhaled
smoke (top row) covering their
faces and moving their mouths.
The bottom row depicts the
non-smokers. According to
the Durham research, these
pictures show that “fetuses
whose mothers were smokers
showed a significantly higher
rate of mouth movements than
the normal declining rate of
movements expected in a fetus
during pregnancy.”
The
higher-than-normal
mouth movements of the
babies who inhaled smoke
(resembling what the Telegraph
calls “grimacing”) is further
confirmation that nicotine is
terrible for unborn children.
This kind of behavior could
indicate that the fetal central
nervous system did not develop
at the same rate in the babies
who were exposed to smoke.
“These results point to the fact
that nicotine exposure per se has
an effect on fetal development
over and above the effects of
stress and depression,” lead
author of the study Dr. Nadja
Reissland commented.
It has been well documented
that smoking while pregnant
has detrimental effects on the
developing child. This is one
of the reasons why cigarette
manufacturers are mandated
by law to include such graphic
images on their packaging.
Unborn baby shown grimacing in womb as mother smokes.
While those who want to
ensure that human beings are
given the best environmental
conditions possible to develop
should be commended, it
smacks of hypocrisy that
the same societal concern
is not expressed regarding
the intentional killing of
babies before they are born;
forceps and suction machines
are used to inflict far more
damage upon children in the
womb than smoking.
Editor’s note. Mr. Schouten
is Campaign Director, of
the Canadian pro-life group
WeNeedaLAW.ca. This article
appeared
at
http://www.
w e n e e d a l a w. c a / b l o g / 5 1 2 concern-about-smoking-onpreborn-babies.
24
April 2015
National Right to Life News
www.NRLC.org
Post-Abortive, Former Abortion Clinic Worker Speaks Out for Life
From page 10
What would pro-life people
be most surprised to know
about what takes place inside
an abortion facility?
I think both pro-life and prochoice people would be surprised by what takes place inside an abortion facility. When
I worked there, my friends who
were pro-choice were always
surprised to hear how busy and
crowded the center was on the
four days a week that abortions
were performed. There was
(and in some ways still is) this
notion that abortion is rare.
Even staff members would be
shocked to see women coming in for their second, third,
fourth, fifth abortion. There
was a sense that one “oops”
was understandable, but after
that even the workers began to
pass judgment.
Pro-life people might be surprised to know just how deep
the deception goes--I mean,
everyone working there truly
believed we were doing right
by the women who came in
for abortions. We thought
they would surely suffer or
die without us. It wasn’t until
years later that I learned this
was a lie.
In Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s
book, The Hand of God: A
Journey from Death to Life
by the Abortion Doctor Who
Changed His Mind, he describes his role in lying about
and inflating the number of
women who died from illegal abortions to help buoy the
campaign to legalize abortion.
Even Planned Parenthood in
1960 asserted that 90% of all
illegal abortions were being
done by physicians. I was deceived. Whether by ignorance
or willful refusal to question
unexamined beliefs, I was
duped and completely bought
into the ideology that we were
somehow saving women by
helping them destroy their
children.
All the while I worked there
I missed my baby terribly,
knew I’d never go through
that again, and yet somehow
kept a tenuous grasp on the
notion that abortion was still
ok for other women. It had to
be, because if it wasn’t, then
I’d have to come to terms with
my own abortion (and that process did not begin until years
later.) While the pro-choice
camp continues its attempts to
de-humanize the unborn child,
we need to take care not to
de-humanize those still wearing blinders inside the abortion
centers. Many--most--of them
are good people, deceived. If
we reach out with compassion
and love to the abortion-vulnerable mothers to help save
the precious babe in the womb,
we can reach out to those still
trapped in the depths of the
Culture of Death.
Was there a particular moment that made you change
your position?
My “Ah-HA” moment came
when I learned of a surrogate
mother who was offered payment of her contract in full to
abort the child she was carrying when genetic testing determined the baby would born
with Down syndrome. The biological parents must have been
so dedicated to the idea of ideal offspring to consider paying
tens of thousands of dollars to
eliminate their innocently “imperfect” child, and to my utter
horror the surrogate agreed to
the abortion--and the payout. It
was a like the light bulb finally
switched ON for me. This was
wrong. It was fundamentally
wrong to treat children as commodities to be created, bought,
sold, and discarded at will or
for “quality control.” Once
I accepted that this abortion
was wrong, intellectual honesty and logical consistency
brought me to the realization
that all abortions are wrong.
What message would you
share with individuals still
working in the abortion industry?
Not every pregnant woman
who walks in the door is 100%
certain of her choice to have
an abortion. You may think
that she has carefully weighed
all of her options, discussed
it with her loved ones and the
father of the child, but maybe
she hasn’t. Why not take the
time to truly explore alternatives with her?
Ask her: Is someone pressuring you to do this? Has
she considered the various
adoption options? Does she
know the resources available
for pregnant and parenting
students on campus? Does
she know about medical and
financial assistance from the
government and child support
laws? What if pregnant women
faced with dire circumstances
were met with non-violent options that offered them support,
encouragement, assistance (financial, emotional, spiritual),
direction, and love. This happens every day in pregnancy
resource centers around the
country. Women deserve better
than abortion. You know this.
See you on the other side.
What advice would you give
to pro-life people in reaching
out to those who have had
abortions?
Thank you for asking me
this. One of things I’ve been
most surprised about since becoming pro-life is the genuine
concern for women suffering
after an abortion. After the horrific psychological turmoil that
nearly killed me after my own
abortion, after working years
in the abortion industry, this is
something I simply had never known. There are so many
healing programs out there,
both spiritual and secular, that
I can honestly say I have no
advice in this area! Let’s keep
up the good work in welcoming those wounded by abortion
and offering them compassion
and love as they heal.
Personal stories like Jewels’
can have a tremendous impact
on how we think about the
abortion issue. There are so
many deeply complex layers.
We speak out for the rights
of the unborn child. We open
our hearts to mothers facing
difficult
circumstances.
Perhaps hardest of all, we
outstretch our hands to those
who support or are involved
with abortions. Individuals
like Dr. Bernard Nathanson,
Norma McCorvey [the “Jane
Roe” of Roe v. Wade] and
Jewels Green remind us to
never turn our backs on those
with whom we disagree. There
is always hope that when we
present our message with
empathy and compassion
that hearts and minds may be
changed.
We are looking to hearing
more from Jewels Green at
this year’s National Right to
Life Convention to be held
in New Orleans, July 9-11th.
Registration is now open:
www.nrlconvention.com.
www.NRLC.org
National Right to Life News
April 2015
Autos for Life and Spring House Cleaning
25
By David N. O’Steen, Jr.
Spring officially began March
20. But, depending on which
part of the country you live in,
you may have begun Spring
cleaning in earnest long before
then.
In that spirit, may I ask you to
consider donating a vehicle to
“Autos for Life”? For those new
to National Right to Life News,
let me tell you a little about this
life-affirming program.
Autos for Life has received a
wide variety of donated vehicles
from across the country! Each
of these special gifts is vital to
our ongoing life-saving work in
these challenging times.
Please, keep them coming!
Recent donations to Autos for
Life include a 1995 Mazda 626
from a pro-life family in Maryland, a 2001 Kia Sportage from
a pro-life gentleman in Illinois,
and a 1997 Buick LeSabre from
a pro-life supporter in Iowa.
As always, 100% of the sale
amount for these vehicles went
to further the life-saving educational work of National Right to
Life.
This year will be very import-
of any age, and can be located
anywhere in the country! All
that we need from you is a description of the vehicle (miles,
vehicle identification number
(VIN#), condition, features, the
ant to the pro-life movement,
and you can make a big difference in helping to save the lives
of unborn babies as well as the
lives of the most vulnerable in
our society! By donating your
vehicle to Autos for Life, you
can help save lives and receive
a tax deduction for the full sale
amount!
Your donated vehicle can be
good, the bad, etc.) along with
several pictures (the more the
better), and we’ll take care of
the rest. Digital photos are preferred, but other formats work
as well.
To donate a vehicle, or for
more information, call David at
(202) 626-8823 or e-mail dojr@
nrlc.org
You don’t have to bring the
vehicle anywhere, or do anything with it, and there is no additional paperwork to complete.
The buyer picks the vehicle up
directly from you at your convenience! If the vehicle is in
non-running condition, we can
also get it picked up for you as
well! All vehicle information
can be emailed to us directly at
[email protected] or sent by regular
mail to:
Autos for Life
c/o National Right to Life
512 10th St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
“Autos for Life” needs your
help in making 2015 a great year
for the pro-life movement! Please
join us in helping to defend the
most defenseless in our society,
and remember that we are so
thankful for your ongoing partnership and support! We thank
you, and the babies thank you!
26
April 2015
National Right to Life News
www.NRLC.org
Unprecedented Push by Activists to Legalize
Doctor-Prescribed Suicide:
A Closer Look at 4 Dangerous Myths
By Jennifer Popik, JD, Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics
2015
has seen an
unprecedented
push
by
advocates of doctor-prescribed
suicide to legalize the practice,
with about 20 bills introduced
in state after state.
The
organization behind these
efforts is Compassion and
Choices or C&C (formerly the
Hemlock Society).
C&C has gained attention
using the case of a California
woman with a brain tumor,
Brittany Maynard. Maynard
moved to Oregon where it
is legal to have a physician
prescribe a lethal dose of
barbiturates to end her life.
Yet as disability rights advocate
and President of Not Dead
Yet Diane Coleman, stated,
“Assisted suicide legalization
isn’t about Brittany Maynard.
It’s about the thousands of
vulnerable ill, elderly and
disabled people who will be
harmed if assisted suicide is
legalized.”
Although assisting suicide is
only legal for a small fraction
of the world’s population,
advocates remain focused
on promoting this dangerous
legislation. Despite well over
140 well-funded attempts and
numerous ballot initiatives, its
U.S. proponents so far have
managed to legalize doctorprescribed suicide only in
Oregon, Washington, and
Vermont –and it may have
some legal immunity in the
state of Montana, due to a court
decision. Also, an appeal is
pending of a Second District
court decision in New Mexico
that struck that state’s decadesold protective law against
assisting suicide.
For bills introduced in other
states, C&C typically
has
promoted essentially the same
legislative
language that
currently governs both Oregon
and Washington. The language,
developed initially for Oregon,
purports to “safeguard” the
practice of doctor-prescribed
suicide by restricting it to the
terminally ill and the competent.
The so-called safeguards have
been widely criticized and the
most recent versions of this
have heard testimony against
these bills from countless
medical professionals, persons
with disabilities, and those
who have survived so-called
“terminal” diagnosis. The
testimony
documents
the
mythical nature of four standard
claims by suicide proponents.
already dangerous legislation
contain even fewer.
These proposals play on
many of our worst memories
and potential fears – either
having seen or dreading having
to go through the experience
of someone dying badly.
Rather than focus attention on
improving pain management,
training physicians how to
manage illness, or teaching
doctors how to interact and
communicate in a respectful
manner with older patients and
those with disabilities, who are
often marginalized, C&C touts
suicide as a “solution.”
Legislatures in multiple states
not like making these kinds
of predictions because they
are difficult to make and
often wrong. Under the laws
being promoted, the patient is
supposed to have six months to
live or less. However, we know
in Oregon that people receive
lethal prescriptions and long
outlive their prognosis. Further,
this so-called safeguard has
been made to apply to people
who no one would think of as
terminally ill such as diabetics,
those with HIV, or those with
hepatitis simply because they
would die without treatment
in six months—even though
with treatment they could live
1. Myth:
You must be terminally ill.
How often does someone
live past a doctor’s prognosis?
Physicians, by and large, do
much longer, even indefinitely.
Assisting suicide legalization
has led people to give up on
treatment and unnecessarily
lose years of their lives.
2. Myth:
The lethal dose will ensure a
peaceful death.
Barbiturates,
the
most
commonly used method for
doctor-prescribed suicide in
Oregon and Washington, do not
necessarily lead to a peaceful
death. Under the law, the
patient is prescribed dozens of
pills and sent home to overdose.
Overdosing on barbiturates
has caused documented cases
of persons vomiting while
becoming unconscious and
then aspirating the vomit.
People have begun gasping
for breath or begun to spasm.
Overdosing on these drugs can
cause feelings of panic, terror,
and confusion. There have also
been cases of the drugs taking
days to kill the patient. This is
hardly the peaceful death that
advocates claim.
3. Myth:
The patient must be free
from mental illness and
depression.
There is nothing in existing
Oregon,
Washington,
or
Vermont law that requires
doctors to refer patients for
evaluation by a psychologist
or psychiatrist to screen
for depression or mental
illness. There is also no such
requirement in any current
proposal in any state. The
See “Myths,” page 39
www.NRLC.org
National Right to Life News
April 2015
27
Down Syndrome Non-Discrimination Act
Introduced in Ohio House
Groundbreaking Legislation to Prohibit Abortions
Based on Diagnosis of Down Syndrome
COLUMBUS, Ohio– Ohio
Right to Life’s Down Syndrome
Non-Discrimination Act (H.B.
135) has been introduced in the
Ohio House of Representatives.
The legislation, sponsored
by Representatives Sarah
LaTourrette and David Hall,
could make Ohio the first in
the nation to prohibit abortions
from taking place on the basis
of a Down syndrome diagnosis.
Multiple studies demonstrate
that upwards of 90 percent of
babies diagnosed with Down
syndrome are aborted. Sixteen
legislators signed on as cosponsors of the bill.
“More and more, it seems
that society is rejecting
discrimination in favor of
diversity,
empathy,
and
understanding for the most
vulnerable and marginalized
members of our communities,”
said Stephanie Ranade Krider,
executive director of Ohio Right
to Life. “It makes sense that
we would apply that practice
across the whole spectrum of
life, to protect some of the most
vulnerable of the vulnerable,
starting in the womb.”
With the introduction of
this legislation, Ohio Right to
Life aims to educate the state
about the high rate of abortions
performed on babies diagnosed
with Down syndrome while
highlighting
the
positive
impact that people with
Down syndrome have on their
families. In 2011, the American
Journal of Medical Genetics
ran a three-part series on the
impact children with Down
syndrome have on families.
Nearly 99 percent of people
with Down syndrome indicated
that they were happy with their
lives, 97 percent liked who they
were, and 96 percent liked how
they looked.
Additionally, more than 96
percent of brothers/sisters
indicated that they had affection
toward their sibling with Down
syndrome. Of over 2,000
parents who responded to the
survey, 99 percent reported that
they loved their son or daughter
and 97 percent were proud of
them.
“Sadly, many women turn to
abortion when they discover
their unborn child might have
Down syndrome,” said Rep.
Sarah LaTourrette. “Having
worked in the adoption field,
I know firsthand that there
are plenty of alternatives to
abortion that respect the value
of life. I am proud to introduce
legislation that will end this
horrific form of discrimination.
This is a small step in ensuring
the right to life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness for
all individuals – not just the
‘perfect’ or the born.”
“Terminating the life of
an unborn child diagnosed
with Down syndrome is
both eugenic and a form of
disability
discrimination,”
said Dorinda Bordlee, Chief
Counsel of Bioethics Defense
Fund. “Nothing in the U.S.
Supreme
Court
abortion
jurisprudence protects these
practices that devalue the
lives of all persons living with
Down syndrome.”
28
April 2015
National Right to Life News
www.NRLC.org
Is there a Bias Against Life-Preserving Treatment in
Advance Care Planning? Clearly there is!
By Dave Andrusko
In
anticipation
of
an
important March 20 conference
being held by the influential
Institute of Medicine, National
Right to Life’s Robert Powell
Center for Medical Ethics
alerted the public to a report
it had produced entitled, “The
Bias Against Life-Preserving
Treatment in Advance Care
Planning.”
That
very
important
document can be read in
its entirety at www.nrlc.
org/communications/
advancecareplanningbias.
What is the nub of the Powell
Center’s analysis?
There is currently a
major
nation-wide
push, both in the private
and public spheres,
to promote Advance
Care Planning. As this
report
documents,
there is strong reason
for
concern
that,
motivated by cost
concerns, promotion of
advance directives and
advance care planning
frequently
deviates
from a neutral effort
to elicit and implement
patients’
genuine
wishes in the direction
of influencing them,
subtly or not too subtly,
to reject life-preserving
treatment.
This is one of those underthe-radar developments that
must be exposed to the light
of day. This is one instance
where money really is a crucial
component. According to the
report
Both
governmental
policy-makers
concerned about the
budgets of programs
precisely because of the
belief that it would help
reduce what otherwise
would be spent on
health care. In fact,
the President himself
called for “a very
subsidizing health care
and private health
insurers see themselves
as
having
strong
incentives to limit
health care spending.
difficult
democratic
conversation”
about
“those toward the end
of their lives [who]
are accounting for
potentially 80 percent
of the total health care
bill out here.”
National Right to Life
News Today has posted a
number of stories about what
Powell Center director Burke
Balch, JD, has described as
“a fundamental premise of
Obamacare”: that “Americans
spend too much money on
health care and the rate of
growth in such spending must
be significantly limited.” The
report reminds us that
The original House
bill
controversially
funded “advance care
planning” in Medicare,
The report offers a number
of quotations from influential
think-tanks beating that same
drum. To name just one, Holly
Prigerson of Boston’s Dana
Farber Cancer Institute, who
said
“We refer to the endof-life discussion as
the multimillion-dollar
conversation because
it is associated with
shifting costs away
from
expensive…
care like being on a
ventilator in an ICU,
to less costly comfort
care….”
The report re-addresses and
puts into context developments
leading up to the passage of
ObamaCare and the “multiple
mechanisms in Obamacare”
intended to “prevent ‘too much’
private money being spent
on health care—even money
people might want to choose
to spend on preserving their
lives or the lives of their family
members.”
The last third of “The Bias
Against
Life-Preserving
Treatment in Advance Care
Planning” offers example after
example of information which
bears such ominous titles as
“Are Some Conditions Worse
Than Death?” and booklets
intended to “nudge” people in
the direction of foregoing lifepreserving treatment.
To answer the report’s opening
question—“Are advance care
planning programs in practice
predominately
even-handed
attempts to find out and apply
patients’ own wishes, or are
they instead primarily directed
to convincing them to agree
to
forego
life-preserving
treatment as a means of saving
money?”—clearly the answer
is the latter.
That
very
important
document can and should be
read in its entirety at www.
n r l c . o rg / c o m m u n i c a t i o n s /
advancecareplanningbias
www.NRLC.org
National Right to Life News
April 2015
29
Unborn baby claps along to “If you’re happy
and you know it”
By Dave Andrusko
I love to watch ultrasounds. I
love how cleverly families use
them to introduce the newest
members to their friends and
loved ones.
So, tip of the hat to Texas
Right to Life for alerting me
and others to a You Tube
video posted last week by Jen
Cardinal, the baby’s mother.
It’s simultaneously touching
and hilarious. Here’s her brief
introduction:
At our 14 week
ultrasound our baby
was clapping, so I sang
a song with our doctor
as my husband filmed.
scrubbed it while we
sang. No mystery. It
was amazing.
And sure enough, as you
watch the baby appears to be
clapping along at just the right
times to “If You’re Happy and
You Know It.”
As Ms. Cardinal writes
The experience is one
I’ll never forget. The
baby clapped three
times, and then the
doctor rewound and
But, if you think about it,
there is a mystery. And more
than one.
Why amidst the laughing
does this father say, “Oh, that’s
fantastic!” while another father
will not bother to be there when
his wife or girl friend is saying
“hello” to their baby?
Why is bonding taking place
between Mrs. Cardinal, her
husband, and their baby while
another ultrasound of another
baby will be used only to target
her destruction?
Why, or how, can anyone
look at this vibrant, active,
developing human being and
conclude that it’s okay to end
his or her life?
Take just two minutes
and watch the video at
https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=mR6POuFfFNU.
You’ll quickly see why it is no
mystery that I love it.
30
April 2015
National Right to Life News
www.NRLC.org
“Twice Born”: Fetal medicine in PBS special
provides a stark contrast to dismemberment abortions
By Kathy Ostrowski, Legislative Director, Kansans for Life
Last Tuesday night I was dogtired, but I had been intrigued by
the promos for the PBS threepart special, Twice Born. The
trailer starts out with this teaser:
“Thirty years
ago, a group
of pediatric
surgeons
came up with
a radical idea.
In the history
of mankind
the idea had
never been
proposed.
At medical
con-ferences
few
would
take the idea
seriously. The
idea was this:
to treat birth
defects while
babies were
still in the womb.”
I tuned in. This “first-ever
look inside the Center for Fetal
Diagnosis and Treatment at
The Children’s Hospital of
Philadelphia and its unique
Garbose Family Special Delivery
Unit” did not disappoint.
The first installment introduces the audience to key
physicians and several patients
at the Center. The Center
specializes in “pregnancies
complicated by birth defects”
with an impressive claim:
“More than 1,224
patients have undergone fetal surgery at
our Center, the largest
number of any hospital
in the world.”
Twice Born focuses on treating
serious medical problems
detected in the womb, including
invasive tumors, spina bifida,
and twin-to-twin transfusion
of our state’s campaign to end
dismemberment abortion.
The Unborn Child Protection
from Dismemberment Abortion
Act has passed both houses
syndrome. The first show was
well-paced and personalized
the staff, particularly one
physician whose daughter has a
degenerative disease.
But beyond the pathos of the
medical conditions depicted,
and beyond the admiration for
the dedication and compassion
of the medical staff, a deliberate
feeling kept rising in me: THIS
is what medicine naturally
aspires to…how marvelous…
how noble! This is what
physicians SHOULD be doing!
And I got teary-eyed–but not
just because of the sad stories.
No, my emotion derived from
all the horrific things done to
wonderfully developing babies
in the womb that I’ve had to
contemplate and explain as part
of the Kansas Legislature
and awaits only the promised
signature of pro-life Gov. Sam
Brownback.
As part of the educational
campaign, I’ve learned how
these
D&E/dismemberment
abortions are done: a living
unborn child is demolished
piece by piece inside the
anesthetized mother, who
is almost certainly unaware
of the cruelly painful death
being inflicted on her child.
And then the “trained abortion
specialist” coldly stares at
the shredded body parts and
reconstructs the tiny unborn
child into a tray.
How did these abortionists get
to the place where the unborn
baby is reduced to a project to
be heartlessly disassembled?
How did they stray so far
from the integrity of the fetal
surgeons at the Children’s
Hospital?
At one point
they all attended
similar medical
schools. Ironically,
Philadelphia is the
very same town
where notorious
abortionist Kermit
Gosnell did his
grisly business!
Yet the two kinds
of physicians –
fetal
surgeons
and abortionists–
might as well
live on different
planets.
In the trailer to
Twice Born, The
Center’s Dr. N.
Scott Adzick says
“We’re driven by
trying to find solutions
to
those
unsolved
problems. It’s a miracle
and a privilege to take
care of patients. Babies
are the future, what
can be more compelling
than a baby?…gosh!”
We can only hope that the
magnificent medicine practiced
at the Center for Fetal Diagnosis
and Treatment continues to be a
beacon that guides and inspires
our nation to throw over the
madness that currently justifies
abortion.
www.NRLC.org
National Right to Life News
April 2015
31
The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment
Abortion Act and the battle to restore respect for life
By Dave Andrusko
By the time you read this
story, Kansas’s Unborn Child
Protection from Dismemberment
Abortion Act may be law. SB95
was approved overwhelmingly
by the two houses (98- 26 and 319, respectively) and pro-life Gov.
Sam Brownback has promised to
sign the bill.
NRL News Today has
provided blanket coverage
of
National
Right
to
Life’s #1 state legislative
priority. We’ve discussed
why SB95 is so crucially
important
on
numerous
occasions. (For example,
see nrlc.cc/1D6RzJC; nrlc.
cc/1F1r9GG;
and nrlc.
cc/1H6pDDd.)
In this, the April edition of
NRL News, I would like to
focus in on something pro-life
state Rep. Becky Hutchins said
during the debate. Speaking
in defense of the victim of
dismemberment abortion, the
“living” unborn child, she
referred to the “three D’s” that
follow when such abortions are
allowed.
“Tearing a developed
fetus
apart,
limb
by limb, is an act of
depravity that society
should not permit.
We cannot afford
such a devaluation
of human life, nor
the desensitization of
medical personnel it
requires.”
Pro-abortionists hear such a
characterization and their only
response is that the language
is “sensational,” “graphic,” or
“inflammatory.” Really?
Not so long ago, no one would
have denied that only a depraved
society would separate arms
from torsos. But the message
of the Unborn Child Protection
most people could/would say,
“I never knew!”
Now to talk about devaluing
human life with people who
make their livelihoods using
forceps and tongs and curettages
and surgical scissors and
Sopher clamps to crush skulls
and disarticulate tiny bodies is
probably a lost cause. Why?
Because in order to live
with themselves, they must
If I remember correctly, he
was talking largely about the
loss of the public’s confidence
in a medical profession that
would slaughter children in
such hideous ways. But I would
add that there is a personal
price they pay for trafficking in
the blood of unborn babies and
the misery of women in crisis.
Thanks to the legislature in
Kansas and to the governor.
from Dismemberment Abortion
Act is that no morally sentient
human being outside the
abortion industry would deny it
today—if only they knew!
There are many and disparate
lessons from past historical
atrocities. But one of them is
they were possible because
become desensitized to what
they are doing—annihilating
little babies who are totally
defenseless—in a brutal and
callous way. The impact
of abortion on the medical
profession was something that
Supreme Court Justice Anthony
Kennedy has written about.
Thanks to Kansans for Life for
putting its considerable weight
behind SB95. And thanks
to NRLC’s state legislative
department
which
was
instrumental in the formation
of the Unborn Child Protection
from
Dismemberment
Abortion Act.
32
April 2015
National Right to Life News
www.NRLC.org
Arkansas Gov. signs bill to require abortionists to adhere to FDA standards when administering RU-486
By Dave Andrusko
Pro-life Arkansas Gov. Asa
Hutchinson has signed House
Bill 1394—the Abortion-Inducing Drug Safety Act--into the
law, the latest in a succession of
pro-life measures passed by the
strongly pro-life legislative.
On March 20, by an overwhelming vote of 26-5, the
state Senate approved HB 1394
which requires abortionists
to adhere to the FDA protocol when dispensing chemical
abortifacients. Two weeks earlier, the House passed the bill
by an equally large margin, 617.
As NRL News Today has explained in prior stories, HB
1394 would include the requirement that the two-drug
technique (RU-486 and a prostaglandin) not be used past the
seventh week–-a limitation
which Planned Parenthood and
other abortion providers freely
concede they ignore--and that
abortionists use three RU486
pills, rather than one.
Pro-life Arkansas Governor
Asa Hutchinson
In addition, only physicians
could provide chemical abortifacients under the bill. Moreover the physician (abortionist)
must have a contract with another physician who has agreed
to handle any complications
and who has admitting and gynecological/surgical privileges
at a nearby hospital.
“This bill protects women
from dangerous and potentially deadly off label uses of the
abortion drug,” Republican
Sen. Linda Collins-Smith of
Pocahontas told lawmakers.
“The bill in no way restricts the
availability of abortions.”
Last month NRL News Today
reported that Gov. Hutchinson
signed a bill that requires abortionists to be in the same room
as the pregnant woman when
she receives chemical abortifacients. This is not the case with
so-called webcam abortions.
The abortionist is in a hub
miles (or even states) away and
dispenses chemical abortifacients by remotely unlocking
a drawer at her location. He
never is in the same room as the
pregnant woman.
The Arkansas law also requires the abortionist to make
“all reasonable efforts” to ensure that the woman returns
between 12 and 18 days afterwards for follow-up examinations.
There are now 18 states that
require the abortionist to be in
the same room as the pregnant
woman.
6 people whose lives are
changing the abortion debate
From page 13
can be brought together, as can
the feet. The embryo also kicks,
and will jump if startled.
The baby’s heart has also
been beating for a month, and
brain waves have been readable
since six weeks.
7) Riley Goodger
Little Riley was born in
Wales at 22 weeks old. Even
though he breathed and lived
on his own for over 90 minutes, medical staff refused to
help him stay alive. Since he
Emma Jones and Christopher Goodger with
photos of their sons Tyler and Riley.
was under 24 weeks old, doctors didn’t deem him worth
saving since they believed he
might die or have disabilities
anyway.
But Riley is showing the
world that babies at all ages
want to fight for their lives and
deserve to be fought for. The
abortion limit in Wales is 24
weeks. Riley was younger that
this, and he valiantly demonstrated that incredibly tiny
children are still living human
beings, no matter their size or
level of development.
www.NRLC.org
National Right to Life News
April 2015
Taxpayer funded abortion ban, abortion facility
licensing bills approved by House committee
33
MCCL-supported protective measures advance at Legislature
ST. PAUL — Abortion facilities would be licensed and
taxpayer funding of abortion
would be prohibited under
two bills passed by a committee of the Minnesota House of
Representatives on March 26.
Both protective measures are
strongly supported by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life
(MCCL).
The Health and Human Services Finance committee voted 10-7 to approve H.F. 607,
authored by Rep. Tama Theis,
R-St. Cloud, which would prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion. The state has paid more
than $20 million for elective
abortions performed on low-income women since the Minnesota Supreme Court’s 1995 Doe
v. Gomez decision required taxpayers to fund abortions.
“For decades, the federal government has forbidden most taxpayer funded abortions—just
as we seek to do today,” said
MCCL Legislative Director
Andrea Rau. “This bill returns
the issue of whether or not the
taxpayers of this state should be
have increased to 34.8 percent
of all abortions performed in
the state, according to the Minnesota Department of Health. In
2012, taxpayers paid more than
Minnesota State Rep. Tama Theis
Minnesota State Rep. Debra Kiel
forced to fund a practice which
the majority opposes, to the policymakers of this state where
the decision is rightly decided.”
Abortions funded by taxpayers
$822,000 for 3,571 abortions.
A second bill, H.F. 606, authored by Rep. Debra Kiel,
R-Crookston, passed through
the committee on a 9-7 vote.
The legislation would require
facilities that perform 10 or
more abortions per month to be
licensed by the Department of
Health. The bill also authorizes
up to two yearly inspections of
abortion facilities at the department’s discretion.
“This legislation protects the
women of the state of Minnesota from the dirty, illegal and unsafe abortion practices we have
seen in other states,” Rau said.
Currently, Minnesota’s abortion
facilities are neither licensed
nor inspected by any state agency—even though dangerous
abortion center conditions have
been discovered in numerous
other states.
The licensing requirement
would apply to the state’s five
abortion facilities, which together perform 99 percent of
all abortions in Minnesota. H.F.
606 was approved and sent to
the Ways and Means committee.
Government Report Shows Hundreds of Millions in Tax Dollars
Going to Planned Parenthood
From page 17
The Population Council
also received nearly $24
million from Health and
Human Services (HHS) and a
small grant from the Defense
Department (about $70,000
for some “Military medical
research and development”).
This brought its total federal
expenditures over the threeyear period to $128.8 million.
Nailing down full outlays
from every federal agency
is difficult, but none of the
other groups tracked in the
report had the level of federal
funding the GAO found
for
Planned
Parenthood,
the Population Council, or
IPPF. Federal expenditures
for Advocates for Youth
federal were reported to be
$3.63 million, Guttmacher
$4 million, and SIECUS just
$0.45 million (about $450,00)
from 2010-2012.
Given the abortion advocacy
of these groups, and in some
cases their performance and
promotion of abortion in the
U.S. and around the world,
many Americans find any
amount of funding for these
groups highly problematic.
Representative Chris Smith
(R-NJ), one of the congressmen
requesting the GAO report,
called it “unconscionable”
that a group like Planned
Parenthood,
responsible
for millions of abortions in
the U.S. “continues to be
subsidized by the American
taxpayer.”
Surely there must be better
ways to spend our money.
34
April 2015
National Right to Life News
www.NRLC.org
Alzheimer’s and the Call to Exercise Virtue
By Dave Andrusko
Editor’s note. This first appeared sometime ago. But the
campaign to annihilate societal
resistance to assisted suicide
grows ever louder and more insistent and what we read here is
a powerful antidote.
Last week the New York
Times’ Matt Flegenheimer
wrote a much commented upon
story about Charles Snelling,
who had killed his wife and
took his own life. I did not see
the Times story, but had read the
Washington Post account.
On Monday the Times’ David Brooks wrote an absolutely
must-read column. While not
perfect, “Respect the Future”
untangles a lot of issues that
were overlooked in the original stories and reader responses
(which, as he writes, “make for
fascinating reading”).
Brooks explains that Snelling
had responded to Brooks’ call
to readers to send essays evaluating their own lives (“Life
Reports’) with “a remarkable
5,000-word reflection.” To
quote Brooks
“Snelling was a successful
entrepreneur
who spent decades
serving his community.
He was redeemed, he
reported, six years ago
when his beloved wife,
Adrienne, was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s
disease. ‘She took care
of me in every possible
way she could for 55
years. The last six years
have been my turn,’
Snelling wrote.
“’We continue to make
a life together, living together in the full sense
of the word; going about
our life, hand in hand,
with everyone lending
a hand, as though nothing was wrong at all,’ he
continued.
“He believed that caring for his wife made
him a richer, fuller
human being: ‘It’s not
noble, it’s not sacrificial
and it’s not painful. It’s
just right in the scheme
of things. … Sixty-one
years ago, a partner
to our marriage who
knew how to nurture,
nurtured a partner
who needed nurturing.
Now, 61 years later, a
partner who is learning
how to nurture is nurturing a partner who
the nurturing process at the end
of life, like the nurturing process at the beginning, requires
patience and that those who are
desperate should seek help, not
a firearm.”
Brooks’ objective, of course,
is not to attack Snelling (“Everyone approaches this case
with sadness and trepidation”),
but it’s clear to me that he
doesn’t sympathize with those
who “argued that people in
these circumstances should be
able to end their spouse’s life
needs nurturing.’”
“On March 29, less
than four months after
we published his essay
online, Snelling killed
his wife and then himself.”
Brooks explains that of those
who wrote, “The majority support or sympathize with Snelling’s double-killing.” He writes
that some “were impressed by
the
Romeo-and-Juliet-style
ending that Snelling created.”
But “Others, more likely
women than men, were upset
by Snelling’s decision,” Brooks
notes. “A woman from Canada
who has spent 25 years nursing
Alzheimer’s patients, argued
that none of us have the right to
decide that another person’s life
is worthless. Some argued that
legally, so they don’t then feel
compelled to end their own.”
What had happened? Pay particular attention to the last sentence. Brooks writes
“…I can come to only
one conclusion: Either
Snelling was so overcome that he lost control of his faculties, or
he made a lamentable
mistake. I won’t rehearse the religious arguments against murder and suicide, many
of which are based on
the supposition that a
life is a gift from God.
Our job is not to determine who is worthy of
life, but how to make
the most of the life we
have been given.”
It is impossible to see this
double tragedy apart from the
never-ceasing campaign by
those who wish to “assist” suicides—as advocated by the
“several” quoted above–and
most commonly of those with
cogitative disabilities, particularly Alzheimer’s.
Brooks makes a hugely important point: a few months
before, in his “Life Report,
Snelling had written “that his
life as his wife’s caretaker was
rich and humanizing. By last
week, he apparently no longer
believed that.”
Brooks adds, “But who is to
say how Snelling would have
felt four months from now.”
This cannot be emphasized
enough.
Brooks’ conclusion is eloquent and heart-wrenching, and,
without “taking sides,” speaks a
powerful truth.
“It seems wrong to
imagine that you have
mastery over everything you will feel and
believe. It’s better to
respect the future, to
remain humbly open to
your own unfolding.
“Furthermore,
I
bought the arguments
that Snelling made
in that essay: that his
wife’s illness had become a call for him to
exercise virtue and to
serve as an example for
others; that people are
joined by suffering, and
that the life of a community is enriched by
the hard tasks placed
before it; that dependency is the normal
state of affairs.”
You can read Brooks’ column at http://www.nytimes.
com/2012/04/03/opinion/
brooks-respect-the-future.
html?scp=2&sq=david%20
brooks&st=cse&_r=0
www.NRLC.org
National Right to Life News
April 2015
35
Couple enjoying every moment possible with
their daughter with Anencephaly
By Nancy Flanders
At their 20 week ultrasound,
Kourtney Coleman and Jerry
Siano were ready to find out if
they were having a baby boy
or girl. But within that same
exciting moment of discovering
Coleman and Siano on a trip with
Olivia-Elise to Disney World.
Photo courtesy of Facebook.
they are having a daughter,
the couple also learned their
daughter has Anencephaly, a
neural tube defect in which
the skull does not develop and
the brain does not fully grow.
Babies with Anencephaly are
likely to die within minutes of
birth, but some have lived for a
few hours or a few days.
Coleman and Siano were told
they had two options. They
could terminate the pregnancy
by inducing early or they could
continue the pregnancy for as
long as possible. While Siano’s
first reaction was to keep his
daughter alive for as long as
possible, Coleman was a bit
more torn on what to do. On
their Facebook page she writes:
It did not make any
sense how our baby
could still be alive
and kicking when her
brain was not fully
developed. It just did
not seem possible. We
had just seen her on the
ultrasound screen and
she looked perfect to
us. […] At first, I could
not imagine carrying
her until birth feeling
every movement and
kick knowing that she
would not live to be
with us.
The couple went to another
appointment and learned that
the diagnosis of Anencephaly
was indeed correct. They
knew that whether they chose
to terminate or to carry, they
would be devastated by the loss
of their daughter, whom they
named Olivia-Elise. But after
a few days of thinking it over,
the couple decided to continue
the pregnancy and carry OliviaElise for as long as possible.
“[…] we both agreed
that we were going to
continue the pregnancy
and cherish every
moment we had with
Olivia-Elise,”
writes
Coleman. “She was
our daughter and we
couldn’t imagine not
being able to hold her
even if it was just for
a little bit of time. We
wanted her family to be
able to meet her too. The
decision to continue the
pregnancy was not easy
but it brought a sense
of peace that is hard to
describe.”
Olivia-Elise is due to be born
within the next week. Coleman
and Siano are going to make
the most of the time they have
with her, both in the womb and
out. But they are also using
Olivia-Elise’s life to make a
difference for future babies with
Anencephaly by participating
in the Duke Anencephaly study.
They hope to help discover
the causes of Anencephaly as
well as prevention methods,
treatments,
and
most
importantly – a cure.
No matter how short OliviaElise’s life is, she will have a
big impact on the world.
Editor’s note. This originally
appeared at liveactionnews.
org and is reprinted with
permission.
36
National Right to Life News
April 2015
www.NRLC.org
Kevorkian’s True Goal was Human Vivisection
By Wesley J. Smith
The revisionism about Jack
Kevorkian and his purposes will
not stop–and it can’t be allowed
to stand. The truth about K and
what he was really after–his
true motives–is too important,
because it not only shows the
seductive nihilism of our present
grim subject,” as TIME
wrote in Kevorkian’s
2011 obituary.
“ZANY?” The man was
truly disturbed! And his goal
wasn’t to alleviate suffering.
He wasn’t compassionate, but
advances any further. Doing
so is in keeping with the pride
Kevorkian took in the shock
he created by stating his views
bluntly. And that is precisely
what I propose to do; allow
Kevorkian to speak for himself,
unvarnished
and
without
compromise. (All quotes below
are from Kevorkian’s book
“Prescription Medicide.”)
I list his goals in more detail in
the piece, quoting Kevorkian–
but for the sake of space, here’s
a nutshell summary:
1. He favored death on
demand–he invented categories
of people who should have
access to euthanasia.
2. He only saw his assisted
suicide campaign as a distasteful
“professional obligation:”
Jack Kevorkian
day that a ghoul like him could
become widely admired, but
how hard the media work to tell
the story they want to tell rather
than report facts in front of their
very eyes.
Time is the latest journalistic
sinner, with a piece looking
back at the magazine’s historical
stories. From, “Why Dr. Death
Wanted to be Tried for Murder,”
by Jennifer Latson:
Kevorkian
was
prepared to go to prison
if it meant raising
awareness of what he
considered to be our
nation’s
backward,
oppressive euthanasia
laws… Part of what
made Kevorkian such
a prominent public
figure was his zany
personality,
coupled
with a dramatic flair
that “brought a certain
approachability to a
coldly clinical and utilitarian.
His victims were merely the
many means to attain his
ultimate end.
Here’s the truth: While I think
he got addicted to the attention
that came his way–and hanging
out with A-list celebrities–
once he started spouting about
compassion and suffering as
his justification, he always
harbored deeply personal and
obsessively selfish reasons
for trying to shatter our laws
against euthanasia.
Nor did he keep his true
motives a secret–he described
them openly and with sickening
candor in his book Prescription
Medicide. At the time of his
death, the National Catholic
Register asked me to reflect on
his life. From my “Remembering
the Real Jack Kevorkian:”
With Kevorkian’s death,
it is important to stop
that revisionism before it
3. He wanted to use euthanasia
as a means of harvesting organs.
Indeed, he tore the kidneys
out of one of his victims and
offered them “first come, first
served,” at a press conference.
4. His ultimate purpose was
to gain access to people who
wanted to be euthanized so he
could conduct experiments on
them while they were still alive
and under sedation.
5. Before his assisted suicide
campaign, he tried to gain
access to condemned prisoners
upon which to experiment. It
was only when he was kicked
out of every prison that he
turned his attention to the sick.
6. He didn’t turn to active
euthanasia because he cared
about the patients, he turned
to lethal injections because it
was the method that would be
required for him to be able to
pick his way through living
human bodies!
Kevorkian never recanted
these views. To the contrary:
He methodically pursued his
ghoulish purposes step-by-step
for eight years; first, gaining a
quasi-license to assist suicides
after several juries refused to
convict him; then, taking the
kidneys from the body of one of
his cases and offering them for
transplant; to actively lethally
injecting Youk.
Euthanasia, as opposed to
assisted suicide, is necessary to
allow experimentation before
the death, since the “subject”
would have to be anesthetized.
It ended there — with prison.
But one shudders to think
what would have happened if
that last jury, like the several
before it, had decided to let
Kevorkian continue being
Kevorkian.
In summary, Kevorkian was
never about the “patients.” It
was always and exclusively
aimed at gaining Kevorkian
access to carrying out his
twisted pathologies.
It’s all there, in his book. He never
recanted a word he wrote and the
methodical method to his madness
is clear for anyone to discern.
The clueless and biased
media never tell Kevorkian’s
real story, which is odd. The
truth about Jack Kevorkian
is much more interesting and
worthy of journalistic pursuit
than the phony feel-good
revisionist nonsense that saps
Kevorkian of his true self and
reinvents him as a harmless and
zany Muppet.
Editor’s note. This originally
appeared at nationalreview.com/
human-exceptionalism and is
reprinted with permission.
www.NRLC.org
National Right to Life News
April 2015
37
British CPS blocks prosecutions of abortionists
caught on tape agreeing to sex-selection abortions
By Dave Andrusko
In an incredible, albeit not
unexpected, turn of events,
Britain’s Crown Prosecution
Service (CPS) has potentially
opened the door to sexselection abortion on demand.
First, some background.
In 2013, the CPS decided it
“was not in the public interest”
to prosecute two abortionists
caught on tape agreeing to
abort because the mother did
not want a girl.
consider an appeal.
“I believe this is
a really sad day for
women in the UK. We
have abhorred the
practice in China and
India, where millions
of (unborn) baby girls
are killed simply for
being girls.
“Yet when a case like
this is exposed in the
UK, the CPS actively
Abortionist Palaniappan Rajmohan
But recently--and more
amazing still--not only has
the CPS now stepped in to
stop a private prosecution
of abortionists Palaniappan
Rajmohan
and
Prabha
Sivaraman (who were already
scheduled to go to trial), but
has used its power to quash the
case.
“It is the second time in two
years that the CPS has blocked
a prosecution against the pair
despite acknowledging that
the evidence could lead to
a successful prosecution,”
according to the Telegraph’s
John Bingham.
Aisling Hubert, who had
brought the case against the
two abortionists, lashed out at
the decision and said she will
works to stop a lawful
prosecution.”
While almost all criminal
cases in England and Wales
are brought to court by the
CPS, any individual or group
with evidence that a crime has
been committed can present
evidence to a court to initiate a
private prosecution.
According to Bingham, at that
juncture the CPS either pursues
the prosecution or formally
drops it.
No dummies, the two
abortionists
“formally
requested that the CPS taken
the case over specifically to stop
the prosecution. Judges have no
powers to stop this happening,”
Bingham explained.
The
CPS
said
that although Miss
Hubert, a member of
the campaign group
Abort67,
did
not
herself have access to
the original evidence
needed to take the
case forward, it had
reviewed the files itself
and decided to stop the
process.
“Taking in to account
all the other evidence
we are aware of, whilst
there
is
sufficient
evidence for a realistic
prospect of conviction,
this is truly very finely
balanced indeed,” it
said.
“However, the public
interest considerations
in not pursuing a
prosecution outweigh
those in favour.”
Sivaraman was filmed in an
uncover investigation by The
Telegraph newspaper in 2012.
She was working both for
private clinics and the National
Health Service Hospitals at the
time and was recorded telling a
woman, “I don’t ask questions.
If you want a termination, you
want a termination.”
Bingham previously reported
that Rajmohan “was filmed at the
Calthorpe Clinic in Edgbaston,
Birmingham,
agreeing
to
conduct the procedure even
though he told the undercover
reporter: ‘It’s like female
infanticide, isn’t it?’”
The CPS decision throws the
already confused status of sexselection abortion into further
disarray.
Gender is not specified as
a legal ground for abortion
under the 1967 Abortion Act,
which applies in mainland
Britain. Pro-abortionists insist
the law is “silent” on the issue
and therefore what critics call
gendercide is not illegal.
As NRL News Today
reported, attempts by Members
of Parliament have ended
in a stalemate of confusion.
A private bill introduced in
November 2014 by the Tory MP
Fiona Bruce garnered garnered
near unanimous support:181-1.
But in February, an attempt to
write the clarification formally
into law failed 292 to 201 under
a barrage of phony allegations
about what the bill as amended
would do.
Andrea
Williams,
chief
executive of the Christian
Legal Centre which supported
Ms. Hubert, told Bingham:
“Last
month,
Parliament refused to
enact an explicit ban on
gender-abortion, now
the CPS says that the
law isn’t strong enough
to allow prosecution of
doctors filmed offering
gender abortion.
“This
ridiculous
stalemate leaves the
door wide open for
gender abortion to
continue unchallenged.
“Those in authority
shout
loudly
that
they oppose genderabortion but refuse
to take action against
it when they have
the chance, leaving
women and baby girls
unprotected.
“Worse still, they
shut
down
other
people’s
attempts
to hold doctors to
account. Whose side
are they really on?”
38
April 2015
National Right to Life News
www.NRLC.org
Kansas Governor Brownback signs historic ban on
From page 1
Dismemberment Abortion
show that in 2014 this method
was used in 637 abortions, or
8.8%, of 7,263 total Kansas
abortions reported.
Introduced in January by
lead sponsor, Sen. Garrett
Love (R-Montezuma), and
24 Senate co-sponsors, the
Unborn Child Protection from
Dismemberment Abortion Act
generated immediate grassroots
support.
On March 25 the House
overwhelmingly passed Senate
Bill 95 by 98-26. On February
20 the Senate also easily passed
the measure, 31-9.
A similar measure is working
its way rapidly through both
houses of the Oklahoma
legislature.
SB 95 was carried on the
House floor by seasoned prolifer, Representative Steve
Brunk (R-Wichita), chair of
the Federal & State Affairs
committee which held the
hearing on the measure. He was
assisted on legal questions by
another pro-life leader, John
Rubin (R-Shawnee), chair of
the Corrections & Juvenile
Justice committee.
Pro-life Rep. Becky Hutchins
(R-Holton) spoke up for the
victim of dismemberment
abortion, the “living” unborn
child. Then she talked about the
“three D’s” that follow from
such abortions:
“Tearing a developed fetus
apart, limb by limb, is an act
of depravity that society should
not permit. We cannot afford
such a devaluation of human
life, nor the desensitization of
medical personnel it requires.
Once again, opponents of
SB 95 talked about anything
other than the contents of the
bill, mostly complaining that
more money should be spent on
pregnancy prevention.
Perennial abortion supporter,
Rep. Barb Bollier (R-Mission
Hills), offered a poorlyworded and unneeded medical
exception
for
“ruptured
membranes before 24 weeks.”
SB 95 already includes
exceptions for the life-of–
the-mother and substantial
and
irreversible
physical
emergencies.
BACKGROUND
In the 42 years since Roe
v. Wade was handed down,
the Supreme Court has
consistently asserted that States
have compelling interests in
regulating abortion to preserve
the integrity of the medical
profession and to show respect
for the unborn child (“human
fetus”).
“States also have an interest in
forbidding medical procedures
which, in the State’s reasonable
determination, might cause
the medical profession or
society as a whole to become
insensitive, even disdainful, to
life, including life in the human
fetus.” [Stenberg v. Carhart,
530 U.S. 914, 961]
Although in 2000, the Court
in Stenberg v. Carhart did
not uphold Nebraska’s ban on
partial-birth abortions, in 2007
it did uphold the federal ban
on partial-birth abortions in Gonzales v. Carhart.
In both Stenberg and Gonzales, the justices closely
examined
the
gruesome
methods of both partial-birth
and
D&E/dismemberment
abortions.
“Those who oppose abortion
would agree, indeed would
insist, that both procedures
[partial-birth and D&E] are
subject to the most severe moral
condemnation, condemnation
reserved for the most repulsive
human conduct” [Stenberg v.
Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 963
In Stenberg Justice John Paul
Stevens, an abortion supporter,
compared partial-birth abortion
to dismemberment abortion—
not to oppose either but to
make the case that if the state
had an interest in preventing
one, it also did in preventing
the other. He wrote “that the
State furthers any legitimate
interest by banning one but not
the other, is simply irrational.”
[Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S.
914, 946-947]
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
also an abortion supporter, said
in Gonzales that both methods
“could equally be characterized
as ‘brutal,’ involving as it
does ‘tear[ing] [a fetus] apart’
and ‘rip[ping] off’ its limbs.”
[Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S.
124, 181,182]
The simple truth is D&E
dismemberment abortions are
as brutal as the partial-birth
abortion method, which is now
illegal in the United States.
Kansans for Life Executive
Director, Mary Kay Culp,
thanked legislators for their
diligence in tackling the issue
and enacting a sound law crafted
to withstand constitutional
scrutiny that will stop a horrific
procedure.
www.NRLC.org
National Right to Life News
April 2015
39
Unprecedented Push by Activists to Legalize
Doctor-Prescribed Suicide: A Closer Look at 4 Dangerous Myths
From page 26
doctors can make a referral,
but nearly never do. In fact,
according to the Oregon’s
official state reports, in17 years
of legalized doctor-prescribe
suicide, a mere 5.5% of death
candidates have been referred
for psychological evaluation.
4. Myth:
Everything is working
in Oregon.
Barbara Wagner, an Oregon
resident, was seeking a cancer
treatment from her state health
care plan. Astoundingly, she
was sent a letter from the
Department of Health telling
her that her plan would not
cover her cancer drugs (about
$4,000 a month) but reminding
her that she had the option
to kill herself with a suicide
prescription (about $100), for
which the Department would
pay. (Source: ABC News, Death
Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon,
8/6/08 http://abcnews.go.com/
Health/story?id=5517492) She
was not the only resident to
receive such a letter.
While abuses ranging from a
patient with dementia receiving
a lethal dose, to numerous nonterminally ill people getting
prescriptions, to pressure from
the state health plans to utilize
the cheaper suicide option have
been documented and exposed,
the real depth of abuses is
difficult to know. The law
relies on doctors to self-report.
However, there is no penalty if
they do not report statistics and
complications. Furthermore,
doctors are not held to the
ordinary standard of medical
malpractice in implementing
the “safeguards,” but a far
lower one. Under Oregon law,
the death certificate is actually
falsified so that it lists some
other condition, not suicide, as
the cause of death. And much
to the dismay of many families
who found this out too late, the
law does not require families
to be notified of a patient’s
suicidal intent.
It is more important now than
ever to look for and stop the
spread of these dangerous laws
in your state. Chances are, some
sort of legislation may be moving
in your state. Alaska, California,
New Jersey, and Rhode Island
are the most immediate targets,
but there are many others this
legislative session. Killing the
patient must never be condoned
as a reasonable solution to human
problems!
40
April 2015
National Right to Life News
www.NRLC.org
Pro-abortion Senator Reid announces
he will not run in 2016
By Dave Andrusko
On March 27, pro-abortion
Senate Minority Leader Harry
Reid (D-Nv.) announced that he
would not seek another term—
that the 75-year-old will hang
up his spikes after the 2016
election.
filling as if I had played center
field at Yankee Stadium.”
I am old enough to remember
the old Yankee Stadium. The
dimensions were mammoth,
nowhere greater than in center field where it was 500 feet
Pro-abortion Harry Reid (D-Nv.)
I use the baseball metaphor
because it is one Reid employed in explaining why he
would not seek a seventh term.
He dreamed of patrolling center
field, he said, “But the joy I’ve
gotten with the work that I’ve
done for the people of the state
of Nevada has been just as ful-
to straightaway center. Sportswriters referred to it whimsically as “death valley,” the place
where fly balls went to die.
Well, when Reid was Senate
Majority Leader, pro-life legislation, like baseballs hit to center in the old Yankee stadium,
invariably wound up in death
valley. One such example was
the Pain-Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act, which passed
the House of Representatives
228-196 on June 18, 2013, but
never got a vote in the Senate.
No how, no way under Reid’s
watch was the Senate ever going to hold a hearing, let alone
vote, on such a bill. Why? For
the same reason Reid smothered so many bills: he didn’t
want his fellow Democrats to
have to vote on a bill that the
American people supported but
Reid and his pro-abortion Democratic colleagues did not.
Even more so with the
Pain-Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act. Reid did not
want to hear anything about the
extensive evidence that unborn
children have the capacity to
experience pain, at least by 20
weeks fetal age. (See www.nrlc.
org/abortion/fetalpain and also
www.doctorsonfetalpain.com.)
The last thing Reid wanted
was for the Senate to hear the
science behind the findings in
the bill, as was the case at a
May 23, 2013, House subcommittee hearing.
There will be plenty of time
to talk about possible leadership successors with his caucus
and about which candidates,
Democrats and Republicans,
will slug it out in 2016. Suffice
it to end with this.
The abortion lobby had no
more reliable (and often crafty)
ally than Reid, although the
news media often misidentified
him as an abortion foe.
“Reid is one of the pro-abortion movement’s strongest assets
in Congress,” Douglas Johnson,
NRLC’s legislative director, has
said. “He has employed the full
powers of his leadership offices
to do the bidding of abortion
lobby on all of the issues most
important to them.”
Reid “votes with the pro-life
side only on less important
matters or when the issue is already decided and his vote does
not matter,” Johnson added.
Reid was a demagogue’s
demagogue and in love with
the idea of limiting free speech,
i.e., criticism of incumbents.
Particularly irritating was that
the more unpleasant his assault
on opponents, the more injured
the tone he adopted if they
dared to respond.
Fellow pro-abortion Democrat President Barack Obama
said the Senate “will not be
same” without Reid.
For that we can only say
“amen.”